Get Space Property

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as return format, error handling, or authorization requirements. It does not contradict annotations, but also does not go beyond what structured fields already convey, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, with a single clear opening sentence followed by the parameter definitions. There is no redundancy or filler. Every word serves a purpose, and the essential information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two ID parameters, no output schema, read-only annotations), the description is mostly sufficient. It clearly states what is retrieved and by what identifiers. However, it could be slightly more complete by noting that it retrieves a content property specifically (as opposed to other property types) or clarifying what a 'content property' is, but for a straightforward getter, this is adequate.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides only type and title without descriptions. The description compensates by defining both parameters: 'space_id: The ID of the space' and 'property_id: The ID of the property.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, though the explanations are basic and do not include constraints or examples.

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 a single content property of a space by its ID.' This specifies the verb (get), resource (content property of a space), and method (by ID), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_space_properties, update_space_property, or delete_space_property. The purpose is explicit and 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?

The description implies usage: when you need a single content property by its ID. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_space_properties to retrieve multiple properties, or get_page_property for page properties. There is no exclusion or comparison provided, so guidance is minimal.

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