mt_get_content_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it 'gets details', implying a read operation, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the output entails. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about its 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, efficient sentence in Japanese with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose, earning its place without redundancy.

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 the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and 3 required parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' include, how the IDs interrelate, or the return format. For a data retrieval tool in a complex system with many siblings, this leaves significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage in Japanese, providing basic parameter meanings. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying it fetches details based on IDs. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate with extra insights like parameter relationships or usage examples.

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 'コンテンツデータの詳細を取得します' (Get details of content data) states a clear verb ('取得します' - get) and resource ('コンテンツデータ' - content data), but it's vague about what 'details' means and doesn't distinguish it from similar siblings like 'mt_get_entry' or 'mt_get_page'. It's better than a tautology but lacks specificity.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, and with siblings like 'mt_list_content_data' and 'mt_get_entry', there's no indication of how this differs or when it's appropriate. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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