Пространство

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the operation itself — no error behavior for a nonexistent ID, no permission/auth requirements, no indication of what a space object contains. It is effectively a restatement of the tool name.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than discipline.

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 and no annotations, so the description should at least sketch what a returned space looks like or how failures surface. For a lookup tool an agent will call to resolve an ID before chaining into kaiten_list_boards or kaiten_get_board, that missing return-shape context leaves a real gap.

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% ('ID пространства'), so the single parameter is fully documented structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Возвращает одно пространство по его ID' — returns a single space by its ID). The word 'одно' (one) implicitly contrasts with kaiten_list_spaces, but the sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by its ID' suggests this is for fetching a known space rather than enumerating them. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of kaiten_list_spaces as the alternative, and no prerequisite stated.

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