fc list spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results are paginated and that each item is enriched with the current user's permissions and membership, but gives no pagination mechanics or auth requirements.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words. The trailing Controller/Route metadata is developer-facing noise that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, but it is a minor cost.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does compensate by describing the shape of returned items (spaces plus user permissions and membership) and noting pagination. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented parameter, the definition is nearly complete, lacking only pagination mechanics.

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 one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'account' thoroughly (including the warning that it is not a tenant or provider account ID). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns the paginated list of spaces') and adds scope detail about what each entry contains. It is clearly distinct from fc_get_space (singular) and fc_space_members, though it never names a sibling to differentiate explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus fc_get_space, fc_space_members, or the analytics siblings, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose sentence.

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