Vaiz MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it lists spaces for the current user, implying a read operation, but lacks details on behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'available' means (e.g., accessible vs. all spaces). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all available spaces') and adds necessary context ('for the current user'). There is no wasted wording or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has clear gaps. It covers the basic purpose but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details. For a list operation, it doesn't explain return format or scope limitations, making it minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters, the baseline is 4, as there's nothing to document beyond the schema. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so it meets expectations without extra information.

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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('spaces'), specifying scope ('all available spaces for the current user'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'space_info' (detailed view) and 'select_space' (selection action), though not explicitly named. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'list_boards' or 'list_projects' which list other resource types, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention when to choose 'list_spaces' over 'space_info' (for details on a specific space) or 'select_space' (to choose a space), nor does it indicate prerequisites or context for usage. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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