get_content

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 only states what the tool does, not how it behaves (e.g., return format, error handling, auth requirements). The minimal 'by ID' hints at a simple lookup but does not disclose potential pitfalls or edge cases.

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, clear sentence that directly states the purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter tool and avoids verbosity, earning its place without unnecessary words.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and no annotations, the description should compensate by explaining return values or context. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about what 'content item' encompasses and how it relates to sibling tools like article_get. The lack of usage context weakens completeness.

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% with the id parameter already described as 'Content ID (UUID)'. The description's 'by ID' aligns with the schema but adds no additional meaning, such as format details, required vs optional, or allowed values beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('content item') with a specific qualifier ('by ID'). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_article or article_get, which may serve similar single-item retrieval purposes.

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 such as search_content or get_articles. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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