whodb_platform_source_content

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

Annotations already cover the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld profile, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: MCP output capping for text content, and that the workspace object targets per-call without altering session defaults. No contradiction with annotations; the only gap is the returned field/body shape.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and keeps to four short sentences. The fields sentence restates the schema's own description almost verbatim, which is mild redundancy, but nothing is bloated.

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-only tool with no output schema, the description covers targeting (source, ref, workspace), progressive field selection, and the MCP output cap. It stops short of describing what the content payload looks like or how unsupported sources fail, but overall it is sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description largely echoes what the schema already says (source name or id, ref format, workspace host/org/project, fields pruning) without adding syntax or validation detail beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read content for one hosted source object') and adds a gating condition ('when the source supports content reads'), which is more than a bare restatement. It does not, however, name or contrast with the closely-related siblings (whodb_platform_source_rows, whodb_platform_source_objects, whodb_platform_file_preview), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives real workflow guidance ('Prefer fields to request only the content metadata or body fields needed now, then call again with more fields only if needed') and a precondition on source capability. It never says when *not* to use this versus the tabular/file siblings, so the routing decision is only implied.

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