risala_get_contents

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

The description is minimal with no annotations. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. The agent must infer behavior from the name and schema, which is insufficient for full transparency.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks necessary details. It could be expanded to include typical use cases or output format without becoming verbose.

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?

The description does not explain what the list contains, how filtering works (both optional parameters), or any expected output. For a simple read tool, this information is crucial for an agent to use it correctly. Output schema is not provided, so description should compensate but does not.

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% with brief descriptions for each parameter ('Language code (default 'en')'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Both parameters appear redundant (language and lang), but the description fails to clarify their unique usage or relationship.

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 contents list' and the domain 'Risalat Al-Haramain', but it does not specify what the list contains (e.g., titles, IDs, summaries) or how it differs from similar sibling tools like risala_get_full_contents. This is good but slightly vague.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as risala_get_full_contents, risala_single_content, or risala_search_contents. The agent receives no context for choosing among these related tools.

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