content_get_about

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content about what the response contains (supported and latest API versions), but it also asserts a version parameter that the schema does not have, muddying rather than clarifying behavior.

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?

Roughly half the text is devoted to the nonexistent version parameter, and the worked example points at a different endpoint (/content/api/sources?apiVersion=...) rather than the tool's own path. The one genuinely useful fact — that the page lists supported and latest API versions — is buried in the middle.

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 zero-parameter read with no output schema, the description does explain the payload's content (API versions), which is the key missing piece. But the parameter discussion conflicts with the actual schema, leaving an agent uncertain about whether arguments should be supplied.

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 declares zero properties with additionalProperties=false, yet the description spends most of its length discussing an optional 'version parameter' and an apiVersion query example. That is a phantom parameter that could lead an agent to construct an invalid call, so the description actively misleads rather than adding meaning.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Returns content API information") and clarifies that the page reports supported and latest API versions. However, it never distinguishes this tool from the many sibling get_about tools (iaas_get_about, blueprint_get_about, project_get_about, approvals_get_about), so an agent must infer the scope from the name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance ('version parameter is optional but highly recommended') refers to a parameter that does not exist, so it cannot help an agent decide whether or how to invoke the tool.

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