pl_content_item

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic operation and return format. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a read operation, essential context is missing.

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 two short paragraphs: the first explains the purpose with specific verbs and resources, the second gives a return example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description includes a sample return object, which helps. However, it lacks explanations for parameters like lang and detail, and does not mention error conditions or response status. For a simple fetch operation, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has 4 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description explains 'type' and 'contentId' (as 'id') and lists valid content types, but it does not explain 'lang' (language) or 'detail' (likely controls verbosity). The sample return shows fields but does not map to the detail parameter. Given the high coverage gap, the description provides insufficient compensation.

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 'One content item by type + id' and lists the content types (TEXT/VIDEO/PHOTO/PLAYLIST/PROMO/AUDIO), making the purpose obvious. It also shows a sample return object, reinforcing the resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_content (likely a list) and other content-specific tools.

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 use for fetching a single item by type and ID, which contrasts with listing tools like pl_content. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The context of sibling tools with similar naming (e.g., afl_content_text_get) is clear but not discussed.

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