Get Space

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds which fields are returned, but that information is also available from the output schema, so it contributes limited additional behavioral context (no error behavior, no permission notes).

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists the returned fields with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description is essentially sufficient. Only minor details, such as behavior for an invalid or inaccessible space id, are absent.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Space id from list_spaces'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the id's format or source, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific resource and scope ('Details of one space') and enumerates the fields it returns, which separates it from list_spaces and update_space by implication. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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: fetch a single space's details. There's no explicit when-to-use, no mention of when to prefer list_spaces or list_space_members instead, and no stated prerequisites. The only routing cue ('Space id from list_spaces') lives in the schema, not the description.

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