list_spaces

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It correctly states the tool lists all spaces in a workspace and returns specific fields, but it omits details about pagination, rate limits, or required permissions. The description is adequate for a read-only operation but lacks depth.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the action and output, then provide context and a use case. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional params, no output schema, read-only), the description is complete. It explains the purpose, output, hierarchy context, and a typical use case. No missing information for an agent to use it 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 input schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (team_id with fallback, archived with default). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema offers, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline expectation for parameter documentation.

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 all spaces in a workspace with specific fields (id, name, privacy, enabled features). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the hierarchy and the use case of discovering space_id, making it clear this is different from get_space or other space-related tools.

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 suggests using this tool to discover a space_id, providing a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like get_space for single space retrieval, which would strengthen the guidance.

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