kaiten_get_space

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description only needs incremental context. It does add that board references come back with the space, which is useful, but it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown space_id or the openWorld lookup implications despite openWorldHint=true.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is appropriately sized, though 'available board references' is slightly vague about whether boards are embedded or merely referenced.

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?

The tool is simple (one required ID) and an output schema exists, so return-value detail is correctly omitted. Still missing is any note on sourcing the space_id or on not-found/error behavior, which matters for a lookup-by-ID call.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for space_id and adds nothing — no mention that it is a positive integer identifier or where such an ID comes from. The parameter name is self-explanatory, which keeps this from a 1, but there is no compensating semantics.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Get a space') and adds scope ('its available board references'), which distinguishes it from kaiten_list_spaces and kaiten_get_board. However, it never explicitly says it is the single-space-by-ID lookup counterpart to the list 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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing tells the agent to prefer this over kaiten_list_spaces, or that it is the right call once a space_id is known. The only implicit cue is that it is a 'get' versus the sibling 'list', leaving the agent to infer the selection rule.

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