Content Get Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's job is to add context. It does add the returned body fields, but it also references an 'optional TVs projection' with no corresponding parameter in the schema, leaving the agent confused about how to request it, and says nothing about behavior when the id does not exist.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the primary purpose comes first. The trailing '(content, introtext, menutitle) and optional TVs projection' clause is slightly noisy given that no TV parameter exists to act on.

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 read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is close to sufficient by enumerating returned body fields. It still leaves the 'TVs projection' mechanism unresolved and omits not-found behavior, which is the main remaining gap.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying 'by id' clarifies that id identifies a content document, but it gives no format constraints, no mention of whether the id is a content item id vs. a node id, and refers to a TV projection flag that is absent from the schema.

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 and resource ('Get one content document by id') and names the returned body fields, which lets an agent distinguish single-document retrieval from the search/tree/children siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'call this when you already have an id' from the 'by id' phrasing, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to evo.content.search for id-less lookup.

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