cricketaustralia_content

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions pagination and return format, which is helpful, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or whether only published content is returned. It does not contradict annotations as none exist.

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 sentences plus a return example. Front-loaded with key purpose and content types. Could be slightly more structured, but is efficient and easy to scan.

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?

Given no output schema, the return format example provides essential context. Pagination is noted but not fully specified (e.g., defaults, max pageSize). Missing details on filtering by tags and behavior of 'detail' parameter. Adequate for a simple list tool but not exhaustive.

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%, yet description only implicitly covers 'contentType' and pagination. Parameters like 'page', 'detail', 'tagNames' are not explained; 'tagNames' is ambiguous. Description fails to add meaning beyond schema for these parameters.

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?

Description clearly states it lists Pulselive CMS content by type (VIDEO, TEXT, AUDIO, PLAYLIST), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cricketaustralia_playlist which likely retrieves a single playlist. The verb 'list' and resource 'content' are specific and unambiguous.

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?

Description indicates usage for listing content by type, but does not provide guidance on when to use this vs. other cricket content tools (e.g., cricketaustralia_playlist) or alternative tools for other sports. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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