List Spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the scope ('accessible to the user') and the return type (a formatted string). However, it does not explain behavior around pagination, space_type filtering, or what happens if the user email is invalid/unauthorized.

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 very brief and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant given the output schema, but it is acceptable. No unnecessary fluff, though it could be more informative within the same length.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the use of page_size or space_type, nor does it provide usage context. Although it is a simple list operation, the lack of parameter semantics and usage guidance makes it insufficient for correct invocation.

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 mention any of the three parameters (user_google_email, page_size, space_type). It fails to explain the meaning or purpose of these inputs, leaving the agent to guess. This is a significant gap because the description does not compensate for the missing parameter descriptions.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('Google Chat spaces'), and clarifies the scope ('accessible to the user'). It also distinguishes between rooms and direct messages, which helps differentiate it from other list_* tools for different Google services.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, typical use cases, or why you might need to list spaces (e.g., before sending a message). There is no mention of excluded scenarios or similar tools.

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