gateway_knowledge_spaces

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the scope ('personal and group'), the content type ('markdown'), and the visibility filter ('visible to the current actor'). This provides behavioral context beyond the read-only hint, such as the implicit filtering behavior.

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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and scope. There is no redundancy or filler; every word contributes to the meaning.

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 the presence of an output schema and the readOnly annotation, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it omits clarification on the include_personal parameter, which is critical for correct invocation, and does not differentiate from the sibling list tool. This leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether to use this tool or gateway_knowledge_space_list.

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 input schema has one boolean parameter 'include_personal' with default true, but schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what this parameter controls or how it interacts with the listing. It only mentions 'personal and group' generically, leaving the agent to guess whether setting include_personal to false excludes personal spaces.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'personal and group markdown knowledge spaces visible to the current actor'. This provides a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'gateway_knowledge_space_list', which may serve a similar listing function, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like gateway_knowledge_space_list or gateway_knowledge_space_get. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions mentioned. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name alone.

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