meet_get_space

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

With no annotations, the description's only behavioral insight is that it 'gets' details, suggesting a read operation. It does not disclose error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. Nothing beyond the purpose is provided.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and object, and an optional illustrative example. Every word earns its place.

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, one required parameter, and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the invocation. It lacks explicit usage context (like prerequisites), but the example and purpose are sufficient for a basic get operation. The main gap is the lack of behavioral transparency, already penalized.

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 provides only a parameter name with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by giving a concrete example ('spaces/abc-defg-hij'), clarifying the expected format. This adds meaningful semantic info but does not describe other possible formats.

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 the target resource ('Google Meet meeting space') with an explicit example of the resource name format. This distinguishes it from sibling meet tools like meet_create_space or meet_get_artifacts.

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 the tool is for fetching a space when the resource name is known, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like meet_get_artifacts or meet_list_conference_records, nor does it explain where to obtain the resource name. The 'by its resource name' clause gives context but lacks explicit guidance.

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