Get a space

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. Description adds behavioral context beyond that by explaining the meaning of spaceThreadingState (THREADED_MESSAGES means threads; otherwise flat) and highlighting that the returned data can validate a space id before a write. No contradiction.

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?

Two sentences: the first packs the return contract, the second gives two precise use cases. No wasted words; the most important information is front-loaded.

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-only, idempotent tool, the description covers what is returned, the threading semantics, and when to call it. With no output schema, the explicit field list plus use cases is sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

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% and the single parameter 'space' is fully documented in the schema (id formats and sources). The description adds context that the parameter is used to confirm an id, but doesn't provide new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Returns one space's details' — and enumerates the exact fields returned (displayName, spaceType, spaceDetails, spaceThreadingState, membershipCount, createTime, settings). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_spaces and search_spaces by scope (one space).

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?

Provides explicit use cases: check the threading model before send_message with a thread, or confirm a space id before writing. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the stated conditions are concrete enough for an agent to select it.

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