afl_content_photo_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value beyond this by specifying the return shape '{id, type:'photo', title}' and stating 'Auth: none needed.' These details help the agent anticipate the response and confirm no authentication barriers, complementing the annotation-provided safety profile.

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 extremely concise—two short sentences plus a return line—with no wasted words. The key action is front-loaded, and every line adds relevant information: what it does, what it returns, and auth requirement.

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 getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It provides the return format and auth status, which partially compensates for lacking an output schema. It does not describe error behavior or edge cases, but these are less critical for a read-only fetch by id. Sibling tools exist, but the core purpose and call pattern are clear.

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%: the 'id' parameter is described as 'Content item id. Required — part of the URL path.' The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already states; it only repeats 'by id.' Since the schema fully documents the parameter, baseline 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 is specific: 'Get a single photo content item by id.' It clearly identifies the resource (photo content item) and the verb (get). It distinguishes from sibling tools like afl_content_photo_list (list vs single) and afl_content_video_get/text_get by the explicit 'photo' type.

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: call this when you have a content id and need a single photo item. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond having an id. There is no direct guidance about selecting this over list or other content getter tools.

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