get_content_type

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

The description correctly implies a read-only, non-destructive action (get details). Since no annotations are present, it carries the burden, but it does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or constraints. It is accurate but minimal.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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 simple getter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does, but lacks details about the returned information or any limitations. Given the simplicity, a 3 is appropriate.

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 67%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra information beyond the schema; it does not clarify the content type ID or how to obtain it. It neither harms nor significantly enhances parameter understanding.

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 uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('details of a specific content type'), indicating a read operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_content_type or delete_content_type by implying retrieval. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other get tools like get_entry.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria provided. Siblings include other getters, but no differentiation is given.

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