List Community Member Spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotations: pagination consumes API quota and all_pages is bounded. It stops short of explaining rate limits, auth context, or what the response contains.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and free of filler. The tradeoff is that the brevity comes at the cost of substance, since one sentence is pure title restatement.

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 7-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description should carry more of the load: it does not explain what a returned 'member space' looks like, how pagination state is surfaced, or what the two undocumented filter parameters do. Only the quota/pagination caveat is covered.

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?

With 71% schema coverage and 7 parameters, the description adds essentially nothing beyond the schema: the all_pages/quota note is already present in the schema's own description of that field. Notably, user_email and community_member_id have no schema description at all, and the tool description does not compensate for that gap or explain how filtering parameters interact.

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 first sentence merely restates the tool title ('List Community Member Spaces'), adding only 'Reads community data.' It never clarifies what a 'member space' is or how this differs from close siblings like list_space_members, list_members, or list_spaces, leaving the agent to infer the relationship.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set containing list_space_members and list_spaces. The only usage-adjacent note is about quota consumption, which is a cost warning rather than a selection rule.

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