twitter_spaces_info

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses critical behavioral details: the listener roster becomes empty for ended Spaces due to X's retention policy, and timestamps are given in millisecond-epoch format. It also clarifies that only metadata is returned, not audio. These are valuable additions that prevent misinterpretation and enrich agent understanding.

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, dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then lists returned fields, followed by important caveats and timestamp format. Every sentence contributes substantive information, but it is slightly long with many clauses. It is structured logically and avoids redundancy, so it earns a 4 rather than 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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of returned fields and explains important behavioral nuances (e.g., empty listener roster for ended Spaces). It does not mention pagination, limits, or exact response structure, but given the tool's simplicity, these are not necessary. It successfully covers the key aspects an agent needs to know.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions (id, with_replays, with_listeners). The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific explanations; it only indirectly mentions listener behavior in the context of ended Spaces, which relates to with_listeners. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description doesn't elevate it further.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get metadata and the participant roster for one X Space by id, live or ended' and enumerates the exact fields returned (title, lifecycle state, host, topics, times, counts, rosters). It also explicitly distinguishes itself by noting it returns metadata only, not audio, which differentiates it from any audio-related tools. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 gives clear context about when the tool is appropriate (fetching Space metadata and rosters) and explicitly notes what it does NOT do (returns no audio). However, it does not mention any alternative tools for audio or other use cases, nor does it state explicit exclusions like 'use only for live Spaces'. Still, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer its use.

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