get_shape_content

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

With no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions 'proper dereferencing' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., resolving unresolved references, performance impact). It does not state side effects, read-only nature, or error behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose, though it could benefit from a bit more structure.

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 description should hint at return format or behavior. It lacks details about the response structure, error conditions, or any pagination/truncation. For a content retrieval tool, this is insufficient for an agent to reliably use it.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no new parameter-specific information beyond the schema, which is acceptable per baseline guidelines for high coverage.

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 resource 'SHACL shape file', distinguishing the tool from sibling read_shape_file which likely reads a raw file without the mentioned 'proper dereferencing' feature. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other similar 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_shape_file or list_shape_releases. No context about prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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