list_spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the default value for includeArchived and the specific fields returned, which is useful but does not significantly expand beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then default and return details. No wasted words.

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 annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) and an output schema, the description covers purpose, default behavior, and key return fields. It could mention the limit parameter behavior, but that is in the schema. Overall, it is complete for a list tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by specifying the default behavior for includeArchived (though already in schema) and detailing the return fields (space id, class, type, etc.), which is not in the input schema. With an output schema present, the return field list provides additional context.

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 clearly states the tool lists generic Huly spaces across modules, with specific verb 'List' and resource 'generic Huly spaces'. It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., list_drives, list_boards) by specifying 'across modules' and clarifies the default behavior for includeArchived and the fields returned.

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 explicitly says when to use (list generic spaces) and mentions the default for includeArchived. It also indicates that module-specific tools can reuse the result, implying this is a foundational list. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, though the sibling context provides that.

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