Core Content Services MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature ('retrieves'), success/failure behavior with return types, and the dual input format (ID or path). However, it doesn't mention potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or detailed error handling beyond ToolError.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, parameter explanation, and return behavior—all in four focused sentences. Each sentence adds value with zero wasted text, and critical information is front-loaded.

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 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description provides good context: purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, and return behavior. However, as a read operation with no annotations, it could benefit from mentioning authentication or access control context given the sibling tools include mutations.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates well by explaining the 'identifier' parameter's purpose, that it's required, and its dual format (GUID ID or repository path with examples). It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though doesn't specify format constraints for GUIDs or path syntax.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('document's properties'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by specifying it works 'by ID or path'. It differentiates from repository_search which searches by other properties.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('ONLY when you need to retrieve a document using its ID or file path') and when to use an alternative ('For searching documents by other properties, use the repository_search tool instead'). This directly addresses sibling tool differentiation.

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