LightCMS

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read operation) and openWorldHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation, such as error behavior when the ID is not found, what fields are returned, or whether the operation is cached.

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?

Extremely efficient at four words. No wasted language. However, the brevity approaches under-specification given the lack of output schema and error behavior context, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Acceptable for a simple retrieval tool with complete schema coverage and safety annotations. However, gaps remain regarding error handling (404 vs null responses) and differentiation from sibling list operations, keeping it at minimum viable rather than exemplary.

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 coverage, the schema adequately documents the single 'id' parameter as 'Folder ID (MongoDB ObjectID)'. The description references 'ID' but adds no additional semantic value regarding format expectations or validation beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States specific verb (Get), resource (folder), and identification method (by ID). The 'by ID' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from sibling list_folders which returns multiples. However, it does not explicitly clarify the single-resource vs collection distinction or mention the MongoDB ObjectID format mentioned in the schema.

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?

Provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_folders or search_content. While 'by ID' implies use when the identifier is known, it does not state prerequisites (having the ID) or exclusion criteria (don't use for searching/browsing).

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