list_codespaces

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb "List" implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, and "for the authenticated user" clarifies the scope. However, it does not explicitly state that no data is modified, nor does it mention pagination or rate-limit behavior, leaving some ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with a docs link. Every word is purposeful and it avoids redundancy, achieving maximum efficiency.

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 endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It states the main purpose and scope, but omits details about return format, pagination behavior, or possible errors. The docs link partially compensates, but the description itself is not fully self-contained.

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 only 33% (only repository_id has a description). The tool description does not compensate by explaining page, per_page, or repository_id semantics. Though page/per_page are self-explanatory, the description misses an opportunity to clarify filtering by repository, so it adds no value beyond the partial schema.

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 "List codespaces for the authenticated user," using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_codespace (singular) and create_codespace_in_repo by emphasizing the list operation and authenticated user scope.

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 provides clear context by specifying the scope: codespaces for the authenticated user. This implicitly differentiates from org-level or repository-level listings, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear enough for most use cases.

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