List Memory Spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds the return shape (names, types, IDs) and the scope (personal vs group), which is useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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 focused but includes a somewhat markety 'MANDATORY' warning and a paragraph about FlowMCP's memory advantages. Still, it's relatively short and front-loaded with the imperative instruction.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explicitly states what is returned: a list of spaces with names, types (personal/group), and IDs. It also explains the tool's role in the broader workflow, making it self-sufficient given the available annotations.

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?

Tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered vacuously. The description doesn't need to add parameter details; baseline 4 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?

Explicitly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'memory spaces' and explains it returns personal and group spaces. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like store/recall by focusing on inventorying 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?

Provides direct guidance: 'Use this tool IF you need to verify available space IDs before creating or pushing records' and specifies it is for finding space_id parameters. It also notes a secondary use case for user space management.

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