list_spaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses only that results are listed and capped by a default of 50. It says nothing about pagination behavior (cursor/offset), rate limits, permission requirements, or whether ordering is stable — all relevant for a listing call.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The limit line partly duplicates the schema's own default value, so it is slightly redundant, but nothing is bloated and no sentence is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter listing tool with an output schema present, the description covers what the tool returns conceptually (spaces/collections) and how to bound the result set. Return-format detail is rightly left to the output schema, though pagination and auth context remain unaddressed.

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 0% and there is one parameter, so the description must compensate. It does: 'limit: Max number of results to return (default 50)' explains the parameter's meaning and restates the default, filling the gap the bare integer schema leaves open.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (spaces), and disambiguates the noun by equating 'spaces' with 'collections' in the Mode workspace. It is immediately recognizable as a read-listing tool, though it offers nothing to distinguish it from siblings like list_reports or list_data_sources beyond the resource name.

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 when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the twelve sibling tools. An agent gets no guidance on whether this is the right entry point for discovering spaces versus querying reports or data sources.

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