list_spaces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It only states that the tool returns a formatted list of accessible spaces; it doesn't mention pagination behavior, filtering via space_type, auth requirements, or result size limits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the purpose. The Returns block is slightly redundant but does not detract significantly from readability.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the return format is covered. However, the lack of annotations and zero parameter semantics leaves meaningful ambiguity for correct invocation, especially around space_type and page_size values. It is minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 the description does not explain any parameter. user_google_email is only weakly implied by 'accessible to the user', while page_size and space_type are left completely undocumented, relying solely on their names and defaults.

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 the specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource 'Google Chat spaces (rooms and direct messages)', with the scope 'accessible to the user'. This distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools like list_calendars or list_drive_items.

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 implies the tool is used when the agent needs to enumerate Google Chat spaces, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as search_messages.

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