List Spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that every page consumes API quota, which is exactly the kind of rate/quota cost an agent needs before looping.

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 with no filler, and the quota caveat is placed where it will be read before invoking. The opening "List Spaces" is redundant with the title, but the rest is tight and front-loaded.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the essentials plus the quota cost. It omits any indication of return shape, but with no output schema and a simple list contract this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 100%, so all six parameters (page, sort, account, per_page, all_pages, max_items) are already documented in the schema, including the quota and continuation semantics. The description's "bounded all_pages" note reinforces the schema but adds no new parameter syntax or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"List Spaces" essentially restates the tool name and title, and "Reads community data" only confirms a read without specifying what a space is or how it differs from the sibling list_member_spaces. There is no field-level or scope-level detail to distinguish it from adjacent space tools.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (e.g. list_member_spaces, get_space). The only hint is that all_pages is supported, which is a capability note rather than selection guidance.

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