agent-content

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the behavior is an alias with a fixed sectionType and that the tool is deprecated, giving loosely beyond the annotations but not much behavioral depth.

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: the first defines the shorthand relationship, the second states deprecation and a removal version. Information is front-loaded and every phrase carries intent.

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?

The sole input is a simple ids array and the annotation provides a clear safety profile, so the structure is basic. However, the description does not say what ids must identify or what the response is acObContents.

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 schema shows a required 'ids' array but has zero parameter descriptions. The description does not explain what 'ids' should be, leaving the agent to infer they are content IDs from the 'shorthand for content' phrase.

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 that this tool is a 'Shorthand for content with sectionType: agent', which identifies the target resource and the fixed scope. It does not use an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'list', but the shorthand relationship to the base content tool gives enough purpose.

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 deprecation notice conveys that this tool should not be used for new work and that removal is scheduled in 2.0.0. It implies the base 'content' operation is the lower-level alternative, but it does not explicitly name the replacement tool or state 'use content with sectionType: agent instead'.

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