LightCMS

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

While annotations declare readOnlyHint=true indicating a safe operation, the description adds essential behavioral context by clarifying that 'get' retrieves metadata only, not binary file content. This manages expectations about the return payload that annotations alone don't convey.

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?

Two sentences, optimally structured: first establishes purpose and parameters, second provides critical behavioral constraint. Zero redundancy; every word earns its place.

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 retrieval tool with fully documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description is complete. It compensates for missing output schema by clarifying what is returned (metadata) and what isn't (file content).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (id and path fully documented), the schema carries the primary load. The description adds value by confirming these are alternative identifiers ('ID or path'), implying mutually exclusive usage, but does not elaborate on parameter formats beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Get'), resource ('asset metadata'), and identifiers ('by ID or path'). It further distinguishes itself from assumed file retrieval by explicitly stating it 'Does not return file content', which differentiates it from potential file-serving siblings.

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 guidance on limitations ('Does not return file content') and points toward the correct alternative method ('use the serve path to access the file'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this vs list_assets or other sibling tools.

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