list_client_spaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it delivers useful behavioral detail: it is an account-level list, empty results have a specific meaning, spaces are auto-created by publish_html, and hostname/portal configuration is external. It does not spell out read-only status or pagination, but 'List' plus the semantic explanation covers the main expectations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and fields, then uses two short follow-up sentences to clarify empty-list meaning and out-of-band portal setup. Every sentence carries useful information without repetition or filler.

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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the domain concept, the returned fields, empty-list behavior, how spaces come into existence, and where related configuration happens. Minor omissions such as output formatting or ordering are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4; there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The field-level detail in the description addresses what the output contains instead, which is appropriate for a no-input list tool.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource ('List the client spaces on this account') and enumerates the exact fields returned, which clearly identifies what the tool does. The definition also distinguishes the concept from related resources by explaining spaces group published pages per client, so it is not confusable with list_sites or the create/update/delete 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?

It gives clear contextual guidance: an empty list means nothing has been filed yet, publish_html auto-creates spaces, and portal/address setup happens in the dashboard. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context makes the appropriate use apparent.

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