Read one DevVault container in full

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly signals a read-only fetch of complete content, but it does not describe side effects, error behavior, or what 'complete content' means with respect to the depth parameter. This is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool, but some operational nuance is left implicit.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the purpose stated first and usage guidance second. Every clause contributes information needed to decide when and how to call the tool.

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 read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential invocation path: when to use it and where the id comes from. It could be more complete by explaining the output or the effect of depth in prose, but the schema covers depth and the title covers what is returned.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for container_id by explaining that it comes from a search result or the manifest, which is not in the schema. The depth parameter's behavior is already documented in the schema, and the description does not need to repeat it, though it could have briefly mentioned the inline-versus-link distinction.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch a container's complete content') and a clear resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools by focusing on full container retrieval rather than context, search, or research saving. The title reinforces the read operation, and the reference to using an id from a search result or manifest makes the tool's role distinct.

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?

'When the rules you were given are not enough' gives a clear trigger for using this tool, and 'Use the id from a search result or the manifest' explains how to obtain the required identifier. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the conditional framing provides useful guidance.

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