ghl_project_get_spaces

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the burden is low. The description adds that results are token-scoped ('every space the token can access') and gives the endpoint and OAuth scope, which is useful. The long preamble about RBAC-filtered task batches, lexorank positions and delete cascades describes other endpoints, not this read-only list call, so it contributes no real transparency here.

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 actual purpose sentence is buried after a multi-sentence preamble about task hierarchy, recurring tasks, search sorting and delete cascades that has no bearing on a read-only spaces list. This violates front-loading and wastes the reader's attention on irrelevant content.

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 one-parameter read tool with readOnly annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the return shape (workspace id/name plus accessible spaces), endpoint, version and scope — enough to call it correctly. The extraneous preamble is noise rather than a missing piece.

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 coverage is 100% and the single locationId parameter is fully documented in the schema (APP channel required, ignored for OAuth/PIT). The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline of 3 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?

The operative sentence 'Returns the location workspace (id, name) and every space the token can access' states a specific verb and resource, and 'Get All Spaces' distinguishes it from the singular ghl_project_get_space. The preceding paragraph is unrelated boilerplate that does not help identify the tool.

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 marketplace example ('bootstrap a Projects UI by listing spaces, then create a folder/list under one space') implies a usage context and sequencing with sibling create tools, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or comparison to ghl_project_get_space.

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