get_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Safely' suggests a non-destructive read operation, and 'basic metadata' hints at the return type. However, it does not disclose what 'basic metadata' includes, error behavior, or whether the file must exist, leaving notable gaps.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or filler words. Every word contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter tool, the description gives a basic idea but omits details about the return structure, metadata fields, and error cases. The absence of an output schema increases the need for such context, so the description is only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only loosely ties the filename to 'local content file.' It does not clarify whether the filename is a full path, base name, or extension, nor any required format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's bare 'Filename' property.

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 uses a specific verb ('locate') with a clear resource ('local content file') and scope ('return basic metadata'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_content (listing all) and manage_content (modifying) by explicitly indicating a safe, read-only lookup action.

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 contrasting with siblings (e.g., 'Safely locate' vs. manage tools), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implicit, not direct.

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