space_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or the expected return format. For a read operation, it should at least imply that it is a read, but even basic context is missing.

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 is a single, front-loaded phrase with no redundant words. Every token contributes to conveying the action and target, making it an exemplary concise description for a simple tool.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what 'details' are returned. It also does not define what 'Space' means in a domain with many getter tools. The description is too sparse to give an agent confidence about the tool's functionality and return value, especially without any annotation support.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the 'id' parameter, but the schema description only provides an example (1djGXrBwYEjxZ). The description's 'By ID' confirms that the parameter is the identifier, adding minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get Space Details By ID' clearly states the verb (Get), the resource (Space Details), and the method (By ID). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_tweet_details or get_community_details because it targets a different resource type, though it does not explicitly say 'Space' refers to a Twitter 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, and there are no references to similar tools. For a getter with many siblings, this lack of usage context is a clear gap.

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