List Spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a formatted string of spaces accessible to the user, but does not disclose pagination, ordering, or space-type filtering behavior beyond the schema's default. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the action in the first sentence. The second 'Returns' line is somewhat redundant but concisely specifies the return format. No rambling or unnecessary detail.

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 simple list tool with strong annotations, the description is still incomplete because it omits any explanation of required parameter semantics and does not offer usage context such as discovering spaces before sending messages. With 0% schema coverage and no output schema details visible beyond 'str', the agent lacks enough guidance to filter spaces or understand the required email. The annotations cover safety, but not invocation semantics.

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 description provides no information about the three parameters. With schema description coverage at 0%, it does not compensate by explaining why 'user_google_email' is required or what 'space_type' and 'page_size' mean. The agent must rely solely on parameter names, which is insufficient for correctly invoking the 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 states a specific action ('Lists Google Chat spaces') and clarifies scope ('rooms and direct messages') and access ('accessible to the user'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_messages or search_messages, which handle message content rather than spaces.

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 implies use when needing to enumerate the user's spaces but gives no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance. It does not mention that list_spaces is a prerequisite for messaging tools or contrast it with search_messages. Sibling differentiation is left mostly to the tool name.

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