fc get space

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content about scope of the return (membership and permissions are user-specific), but says nothing about auth requirements, behavior for a missing/unauthorized slug, or the role the `account` parameter plays.

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 first sentence is efficient and front-loaded, but the Controller/Route source block is provenance metadata that does not help an agent select or invoke the tool, so not every line 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value burden, and it does partially list the payload contents. However, it omits error/empty behavior for an invalid slug and how the 'current user' context is resolved relative to the `account` parameter.

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% — `slug` and `account` are both documented in the input schema, including the non-obvious clarification that `account` is a profile label, not a tenant ID. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns one space') and enumerates what comes back (settings, topics, membership, permissions), which cleanly separates it from `fc_list_spaces` and `fc_space_members`. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 gives no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing. It never says to prefer this over `fc_list_spaces` when a slug is known, nor what to do if the slug is unknown.

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