get_content_type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it returns null for an unknown name and that each field carries valueFormat/valueExample showing the exact JSON create_content/update_content expect.

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 resource and its contents, then adds the workflow directive and the null behavior. Dense but each clause earns its place; the parenthetical field list and trailing ellipsis make it slightly unpacked.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return value itself — and it does, including the field shape, value format, and null case. Coverage is strong, though the ellipsis leaves the full field enumeration open.

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 100%, so both 'name' and 'site' are fully documented in the schema (including the multisite gotcha). The description adds nothing about parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get one') and resource ('content type's definition') and then enumerates the exact return surface (name, kind, displayName, schemaType, fields). The singular framing cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_content_types.

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 a concrete trigger — 'Call this before writing content of a type' — tying it to create_content/update_content. It does not explicitly contrast with list_content_types or get_content, so the alternative-selection guidance is implicit rather than spelled out.

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