ghl_project_get_space_lists

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: OAuth scope, endpoint, token-derived location, and the `lists[]` return shape. It does not cover rate limits or error behavior, but the safety profile is already handled by 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 opens with a long API-wide preamble about batch-get RBAC, lexorank positions, recurring tasks, search, and delete cascades that is largely irrelevant to this listing operation. The specific section is efficient, but the overall text is not front-loaded and contains sentences that do not earn their place.

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 read-only paginated list tool with complete schema coverage and clear annotations, the description supplies endpoint, OAuth scope, direct-list scope, and pagination guidance. It also mentions the `lists[]` return shape despite there being no output schema. The unrelated API preamble keeps it from being fully focused, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces that `limit`/`cursor` page through full result sets and that `anchorId` centers the window, but adds little semantic depth beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: get lists directly under a space. It explicitly distinguishes this from lists inside folders and from unrelated `items`, so an agent can identify the exact operation without opening the schema.

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?

It clearly states the scope: lists directly under a space, excluding lists inside folders. It also explains optional centered paging via `anchorId` and that location comes from the token. It does not explicitly name the folder-list sibling as the alternative, so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives guide.

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