Get a change request reusable content by its ID

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint path, which aligns with annotations but does not provide additional behavioral context such as error states, pagination details, or authentication requirements.

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 with two sentences, the first delivering the core purpose. Every word earns its place, meeting conciseness standards without wasted text.

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 strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks explanation of the return format (no output schema) and could better differentiate from similar get_reusable_content tools, leaving some context incomplete.

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. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb (Get) and the resource (reusable content within a change request), with the ID parameter. It distinguishes from siblings like gitbook_get_reusable_content_by_id by specifying the change request context.

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 for fetching a specific reusable content in a change request but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or contrast with similar tools like gitbook_get_reusable_content_in_revision_by_id. The context is clear but lacks explicit selection criteria.

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