get_space

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is a terse restatement of what the tool does with no mention of return format, error cases (e.g., invalid space_id, non-existent space), auth requirements, or any side effects (though for a GET this is minor). It doesn't disclose what 'details' actually includes or what happens on failure.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It's optimally front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's somewhat under-specified even while being concise — conciseness at the cost of useful content grades slightly below a 5.

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 single-parameter read tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only a one-line description, the description is quite sparse. While it's a simple tool, 'Get details of a specific space' leaves the agent without clarity on what fields will be returned, how it differs from get_spaces, or what 'details' means in this API's context. A slightly more descriptive sentence would create a more complete picture for tool selection.

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%, meaning the schema already documents the single space_id parameter. The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides — it says nothing about the format of space_id, where to obtain one, or any constraints. As the baseline for high coverage is 3 and the description adds no additional parameter nuance, a 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 details of a specific space' clearly states a specific verb (get) + resource (space), indicating it retrieves details for one space by ID. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_spaces (plural) or get_workspace, the singular 'specific space' plus the required space_id parameter implies the distinction from listing tools.

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. The sibling set includes get_spaces, get_workspace, and other get_X tools, but the description doesn't clarify when to reach for this specific one (e.g., 'use get_space when you have a known space_id, use get_spaces to list all'). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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