afl_content_text_get

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

No annotations provided. The description discloses the return fields (id, type, title, body, author, references, tags), adding value beyond the schema. However, it does not address side effects, error conditions, or performance implications.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no fluff. First sentence states purpose, second lists return structure. Every word is necessary.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter, the description is largely complete. It specifies the return format. Missing are authentication requirements, rate limits, or edge cases, but the tool's simplicity mitigates this.

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?

The single parameter 'id' is mentioned in 'by id', but the description does not explain its meaning beyond that. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description partially compensates but could be more explicit about what id represents (e.g., article ID).

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 'Get a single text article by id', identifying the verb, resource, and identifier. Among sibling tools like afl_content_photo_get and afl_content_video_get, this one is distinct for text articles.

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 vs alternatives, no context on prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the operation without any usage direction.

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