capacities_get_space_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation that may return varying data. The description adds value by specifying what information is included ('structures and collections'), which provides useful context beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or response format details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes relevant scope details ('including structures and collections'). There's no wasted language, and every element serves to clarify the tool's function.

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 read operation with one parameter and good annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies what information is returned, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the response format or any limitations, though annotations cover the safety profile adequately.

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%, with the single parameter 'spaceId' fully documented as 'The UUID of the space to get information for'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating with extra details.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('a specific Capacities space'), including scope ('including structures and collections'). It distinguishes from 'capacities_list_spaces' by focusing on a single space rather than listing multiple spaces, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'capacities_search'.

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 usage context through 'a specific Capacities space' and the required spaceId parameter, suggesting this tool is for retrieving details about a known space. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'capacities_search' or mention any prerequisites beyond having a space ID.

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