confluence_space_list

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers pagination (one page per call, cursor flow), default limit of 25, filter combination (AND), and verbatim pass-through of type/status. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but as a list operation, these are minimal and behavior is well-documented.

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 highly concise with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence serves a clear function (action statement then filter/pagination details), with no wasted words.

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 has no output schema, and the description does not detail the structure of returned items (e.g., space keys, names). It adequately covers pagination and filter semantics, but missing return format details make it slightly incomplete for a 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents parameters. The description adds value by listing common values for type/status, explaining AND combination, default limit, and cursor usage, providing operational context beyond the schema.

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 'List Confluence spaces (one page per call)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like confluence_space_pages by focusing on spaces themselves, but does not explicitly differentiate from all siblings.

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 lists optional filters (keys, type, status) and explains pagination (cursor usage) and filter combination (AND). It provides implicit usage context but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like confluence_search or confluence_space_pages.

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