LightCMS

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to state safety. It adds 'with full field data' which provides useful context about the response payload richness, but doesn't describe error behavior (e.g., invalid version numbers) or versioning semantics.

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?

Single sentence with zero waste. 'Get', 'specific version', 'content item', and 'full field data' each provide distinct semantic value. Front-loaded with the action verb.

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 2-parameter read operation with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the essential function. However, it lacks versioning workflow context (how version numbers relate to 'get_content_versions') and error scenarios, which would help an agent use this effectively in a sequence.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (MongoDB ObjectID and version number). The description implies these concepts but doesn't add syntax details, format constraints, or examples 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?

Clear verb 'Get' and resource 'specific version of a content item'. The phrase 'specific version' effectively distinguishes this from sibling 'get_content_versions' (plural). However, it doesn't clarify the difference versus 'get_content' (current version) or 'revert_to_version'.

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 'get_content' (current state) or 'get_content_versions' (list all versions). No mention that one might need to call 'get_content_versions' first to discover valid version numbers.

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