list_codespaces_for_authenticated_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation is a read-only list, how pagination works, what the return structure is, or any rate-limit considerations. The behavior beyond the verb 'List' is left entirely to the agent's assumption.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so terse that it borders on tautological, adding little beyond the tool name itself, which slightly reduces the score.

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 three parameters with zero schema documentation, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to provide any additional context about filters, return values, or usage scenarios. This is completely inadequate for an agent to invoke the tool with correct arguments.

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 provides no explanation of the parameters (page, per_page, repository_id). The agent has no way to know the meaning, format, or constraints of these parameters from either the schema or the description.

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 action ('List') and resource ('codespaces') with a specific scope ('for the authenticated user'). It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools because no other tool mentions codespaces, making it unambiguous and specific.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply restates the tool's function without adding decision-relevant context.

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