ghl_project_get_space

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the endpoint, version header, source, OAuth scope, and returned fields, which is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss error behavior or RBAC behavior for this specific endpoint.

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 opens with a long PROJECT MANAGEMENT API preamble covering task batch-get, lexorank position, recurring task fields, search sync, and delete cascades. Most of that is irrelevant to a simple single-space fetch and crowds out the actual tool-specific content.

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-only fetch with 100% schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description provides enough to call it correctly: endpoint, auth scope, and returned fields. The missing piece is mainly explicit usage guidance relative to the list-space sibling, not core operational detail.

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%, and both parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description says the lookup is by id but does not add syntax, format, or locationId behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The core sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Fetches one space by id, including name, privacy, and color.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/get-spaces tools and from update/delete space tools.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the tool is used when the space ID is known, but the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus `ghl_project_get_spaces` or any other sibling. Usage is therefore inferable rather than stated.

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