getNodeContent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get JCR node content') without detailing permissions, rate limits, output format, or side effects. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 brief and front-loaded with 'Legacy: Get JCR node content', which is efficient. However, it lacks necessary detail, making it under-specified rather than concise, but it avoids redundancy and is structured clearly.

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 complexity implied by parameters and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, it fails to provide essential context like usage scenarios, behavioral traits, or parameter details, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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%, and the description provides no information about the parameters 'path' and 'depth'. It fails to explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the operation, leaving them undocumented.

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 'Legacy: Get JCR node content' restates the tool name 'getNodeContent' with minimal elaboration, making it tautological. It specifies the resource ('JCR node content') but lacks a clear verb beyond 'Get', and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'getPageContent' or 'getAllTextContent', leaving ambiguity about what distinguishes this tool.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'getPageContent' and 'getAllTextContent', the description fails to indicate context, prerequisites, or exclusions, offering no help for an agent in selecting the appropriate tool.

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