gateway_knowledge_space_list

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations provide readOnlyHint: true, so the read-only nature is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral details such as return format, pagination, or result scope. It is a bare alias with no extra transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short, which might be seen as concise, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place because it fails to provide any informative content beyond the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists and the tool is an alias, the description should clarify the listing behavior and the meaning of include_personal. Without this, the agent lacks essential context to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines include_personal with a default of true, but schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain this parameter. The agent has no information about what include_personal does.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description only states that it is a 'Compatibility alias for gateway_knowledge_spaces.' It does not state what the tool does, such as listing knowledge spaces. The action and resource are not described, and the agent must rely on the tool name and sibling context to infer any purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling gateway_knowledge_spaces or other knowledge tools. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.