get_collection_contents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context beyond the schema by explaining the WLO thematic page concept, swimlanes, and the recursive sub-tree traversal behavior. It does not cover potential error cases or permission requirements, but for a read tool with detailed parameter descriptions, the transparency is solid.

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 a single paragraph with six sentences, each adding value. It starts with the core purpose and then provides context and parameter guidance. It is not overly verbose, though it could be slightly tightened by moving the nodeId sourcing note earlier. Overall, it is well-structured and easy to scan.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main domain context, parameter variations, and recursive traversal. It does not explain the return structure, but since there is no output schema, that is less critical. Minor gaps include not mentioning the contentFilter='files' restriction for includeSubcollections, though the schema does specify that.

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 high coverage (88%), but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining contentFilter values in plain language (files = Lernmaterialien, folders = Sub-Sammlungen, both = alles) and describing includeSubcollections as traversing the full sub-tree recursively. This helps clarify the intent and usage of these parameters.

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 retrieves content items and sub-collections from a WLO Sammlung by nodeId, using the specific verb 'Retrieve' and naming the resource. It also distinguishes itself by explaining that nodeId comes from search_wlo_collections and that contentFilter controls whether files, folders, or both are returned, which differentiates it from sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (to fetch contents of a Themenseite) and explains the contentFilter options and includeSubcollections behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing with browse_collection_tree or get_topic_page_content, which leaves some room for ambiguity.

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