get_space

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation, and the description complements it by disclosing what the response contains: editor/member counts and recent proposals. Since there is no output schema, this extra behavioral detail is valuable, though it does not enumerate all possible returned fields.

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 with no filler. It states the core operation first and then appends meaningful specifics about the return payload.

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 one-parameter, read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the essential expectations: what resource is being fetched and what notable data will be included. It lacks an exhaustive return schema, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the listed return contents.

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 100%, and the single parameter 'id' is already described as 'Space ID (dashless hex)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the action ('Get details') and resource ('a single space by ID'), and it names specific return contents: editor/member counts and recent proposals. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_spaces (which lists spaces) and get_entity/get_type (which target other resource types).

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs details about one specific space, identified by ID, including counts and proposals. It does not explicitly mention excluded alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the single-space framing naturally separates it from list-oriented siblings.

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