capacities_read_object_content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe read operation with potential for unknown endpoints. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it discloses the fallback behavior to search API aggregation and mentions undocumented endpoints, which helps the agent understand reliability and performance implications. No contradiction 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and includes two additional sentences that add context without unnecessary detail. It's appropriately sized, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise.

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 read operation with annotations covering safety and open-world hints, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context on behavior (fallback mechanism) but lacks details on return values or error handling. It's complete enough for basic use but has gaps in output expectations.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by noting that the title parameter 'improves search results,' but this is redundant with the schema's description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the burden.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('full content of a Capacities object by its ID'), making the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'capacities_search', which might also retrieve content, though the focus on a specific object ID provides some implicit differentiation.

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 by mentioning that it 'tries undocumented endpoints first, then falls back to search API aggregation,' which suggests a fallback mechanism but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'capacities_search'. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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