content_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It hints at return contents (full record, hash, approval state) but says nothing about read-only vs mutating nature, permission or approval gating, behavior when canonical_id is unknown (error vs empty), or whether the record is versioned.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is good structure. However, the brevity shades into under-specification for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented parameter — the compactness is doing too little rather than too much.

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 getter with no output schema, the description gives a rough picture of the return payload (full record plus hash and approval state). Missing pieces — error behavior, id format, permission requirements — leave it only minimally sufficient.

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 0%, so the lone parameter canonical_id is undocumented in the schema. The description only echoes "canonical content record", which vaguely implies the id selects a canonical record, but gives no format, provenance, or how to obtain one (e.g., from content_ingest or receipt_list).

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?

"One canonical content record in full" states the resource (a single canonical content record) and the scope (single, complete record), and naming the included fields (hash, approval state) sharpens it. It stops short of naming a verb or distinguishing itself from siblings like adaptation_diff or approval_check, but the shape of the operation is unmistakable.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., approval_check for just approval state, or adaptation_diff for comparisons). The agent must infer that this is the fetch-by-id path from the name and the single required parameter alone.

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