spaces_get_bucket

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the output type ('details and items') and does not mention side effects (none expected), default behavior of 'recursive' (false), or output format. This is comparable to the 'update_drive' example that scored 2 for lacking such context.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get a Spaces bucket's details and items'. It contains no fluff and every word contributes to the purpose.

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?

This simple tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description needs to provide more behavioral context. It leaves ambiguity about what 'details' includes, how items are returned, and the meaning of the 'recursive' parameter in practice, making it incomplete for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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%: both bucketId and recursive have clear descriptions. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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?

The description uses the verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'Spaces bucket' and clarifies it returns 'details and items', distinguishing it from sibling tools like spaces_list_buckets (plural) and spaces_search. It is clear and specific enough for basic selection, though it could be more explicit about the scope (single bucket vs. all).

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 a retrieval use case (get bucket details) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not contrast with spaces_list_buckets or spaces_search, leaving the choice to the agent based on the tool name and schema.

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