pl_content_item

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'Auth: none needed' and the return shape ('Returns: {id, type, title, description, date, body, ...}'). This gives the agent expectations for the response without conflicting with annotations.

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, containing only two sentences plus an auth note. It front-loads the core purpose, includes return format, and states authentication requirements. No filler or repetition—every sentence earns its place.

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 single-item getter, the description provides sufficient context: type enumeration, id usage, return shape, and auth. It lacks details on the 'detail' parameter options and potential error cases, but the schema covers required fields. Overall, it is nearly complete for this complexity level.

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%, with each parameter described (lang, type, detail, contentId). The description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides, though it does repeat the type enumeration. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 the tool retrieves a single content item by type and id, listing the exact allowed types (TEXT/VIDEO/PHOTO/PLAYLIST/PROMO/AUDIO). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pl_content' (which likely lists items) and other content-specific getters. The verb is implicit but 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?

The description implies usage: use this when you need one specific content item by type and id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'pl_content' for listing, nor does it state when not to use this tool. No explicit exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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