Get space

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the 'Read-only' sentence largely repeats structured data. It adds no auth requirements, rate limits, or edge-case behavior (e.g. what happens for an unknown id), so it clears the lowered bar only marginally.

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?

Two tight sentences: the operation and scope come first, then the routing guidance. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

A single-parameter read tool with an output schema, full schema coverage, and explicit safety annotations needs nothing more; the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot, which is when to reach for this tool versus its siblings.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already documents it; the description's 'by id' adds only the framing that the id is a space id you must already possess. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one space's metadata) with the exact returned fields (id, name, slug) and the lookup key (by id). It is immediately distinguishable from list_spaces and list_pages, which it names explicitly.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('when you already hold a space_id and just need its name/slug') plus two named alternatives for the adjacent needs: list_spaces for discovery and list_pages for its pages. Nothing is left to inference.

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