list_spaces

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does useful work: it defines the semantics of the default workspace and explains that a single-scoped connection returns only one entry. It does not address pagination or rate limits, but for a zero-parameter read-only listing the disclosure is solid.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the routing instruction, then the edge case. No sentence is filler.

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, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields; no annotations exist, and it still conveys safety implicitly via 'list' plus the scoping behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it and use the result.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does add cross-tool semantics by explaining that the returned id is passed as `space` on other tools, which is context the empty schema cannot convey.

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 ('List every workspace this connection can act in') and enumerates exactly what comes back (id, slug, name, role, default flag). This is clearly distinguishable from the diagram/deck siblings in the tool set.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use triggers ('Call this FIRST when the user mentions a workspace by name, or when you are not sure which workspace the work belongs in') and names the follow-up action (pass the id as `space`). It also pre-empts the trivial case of a single-workspace connection.

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