wiki_get_space

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond the stated purpose of retrieving details, it does not disclose potential errors, permission requirements, or the exact return format. The operation is implicitly read-only, but this is not made explicit.

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 that immediately states the action and resource, followed by a parenthetical list of return fields. It contains no unnecessary words or filler, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 simple getter tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context by listing the fields returned (name, description, type, visibility). It is complete for the tool's simplicity, though it could hint at edge cases or authentication needs. The sibling context and parameter schema cover the rest.

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 schema provides a description for the only parameter (space_id as '知识库 ID'), giving 100% coverage of the parameter. The tool description does not add further semantic detail beyond what the schema already states, 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 '获取' (get) with a clear resource '知识库' (knowledge base) and specifies the scope of details returned (name, description, type, visibility). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wiki_list_spaces (list) and wiki_get_node (get node), making the purpose 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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling tools include wiki_list_spaces for listing spaces and wiki_get_node for getting nodes, but the description does not explicitly state that this tool is for fetching a single space by ID or mention any exclusions.

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