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. While '取得します' (retrieve) implies a read operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what '一般情報' (general information) specifically includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and front-loads the essential 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 simple read operation with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, without annotations or output schema, it doesn't provide enough context about what information is returned or any behavioral constraints. The description meets basic requirements but leaves important questions unanswered.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'space_id' clearly documented as 'スペースID' (space ID). The description doesn't add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides about this parameter. With high schema coverage, the 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 'スペースの一般情報を取得します' (Get general information about a space) clearly states the verb (取得/retrieve) and resource (スペース/space). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'update_space' or 'get_space_members' by focusing on general information retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'get_' tools that might also retrieve space-related data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are several sibling tools like 'get_space_members', 'update_space', and 'search_records' that might be relevant for space-related operations, but the description doesn't indicate when this specific tool is appropriate versus those alternatives.

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