list_private_spaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions output format options (JSON vs. simplified text) and hints at enterprise management use, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds some behavioral context but does not fully compensate for the absence of annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with bullet-like scenarios, making it efficient. However, the last sentence ('Essential for enterprise space management') is somewhat redundant and could be omitted without losing clarity, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose and usage well but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication needs, response structure, or error cases. For a read-only list tool with one parameter, it is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'json' well-documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the semantic impact of the parameter (e.g., 'Supports JSON output for detailed metadata' and 'Essential for enterprise space management'), providing context beyond the schema's technical details.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'Heroku Private Spaces available to the user', specifying what the tool does. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_apps' or 'list_teams' by focusing on private spaces, which is a distinct resource type in Heroku's ecosystem.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios (e.g., view all private spaces, get space details, check compliance features, view capacity information), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, such as 'list_apps' for non-private resources.

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