capacities_get_space_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the scope of the returned information, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention permission requirements, or discuss potential errors. The name 'get' implies safety, but explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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, focused sentence that conveys the purpose and key contents without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action and resource.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description compensates by listing what the returned info includes (object types, collections, property definitions). For a simple one-parameter tool, this is sufficiently complete. However, it could mention error behavior or required permissions for full completeness.

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% for the single parameter (spaceId), and the schema already documents it as 'The UUID of the space to get info for'. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('detailed information about a Capacities space') along with its contents (object types, collections, property definitions). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_spaces and get_object_types, which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need detailed info about a specific space. It provides clear context but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. While it doesn't name sibling tools, the purpose is self-evident enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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