list_spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered and the description does not contradict it. The description adds the type-filtering and pagination behaviors, but these are also already documented in the input schema. No additional traits (result ordering, defaults, or response shape) are disclosed, so the added value over annotations is modest.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the size is proportionate to a simple 3-parameter read-only tool.

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 read-only list operation, the description covers the resource, the filter dimension, and pagination. Annotations handle safety and the schema handles parameters, so little critical information is missing. The only gap is that with no output schema, the return shape and result ordering are left unspecified — a minor omission for a simple 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 description coverage is 100%: type has an enum with the 'PUBLIC maps to DAO' note, first has min/max and default 20, offset has a default of 0. The description's 'optional type filter' and 'Supports pagination' merely restate what the schema already documents, adding no new semantic meaning. The high-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List spaces') plus a scope qualifier ('optional type filter'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_space (singular retrieval) and list_types/list_entities (different resources), though it does not explicitly name them. Purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_space (fetching a single space) or search_entities/list_entities (other discovery paths). The 'optional type filter' implies a use case for the type parameter, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing instructions. Usage context must be inferred from the name and signature alone.

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