get_codespace

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the context of 'authenticated user' but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, what happens if the codespace is not found, or any rate limits. The safety profile is implied by 'Get' rather than stated.

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, direct sentence with a documentation link appended. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words.

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 GET endpoint, the description is largely complete given the full schema coverage and the included docs link. It states the purpose and scope clearly. However, without annotations, it could mention that it is a read operation or the expected return type, but these are reasonably inferred from the tool's nature.

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 schema already covers the only parameter, codespace_name, with a clear example. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, 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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Get a codespace by name for the authenticated user.' This clearly identifies the action and scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_codespaces (which lists all) and start/stop_codespace (which change state). The scope 'for the authenticated user' further clarifies the target.

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 codespace by name, contrasting with list_codespaces. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The doc link is provided but does not substitute for inline usage direction.

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