LightCMS

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable return structure documentation: 'fork metadata + array of pages (id, title, full_path, updated_at)' that is not present in structured fields. This discloses exactly what data structure the agent will receive.

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?

Three well-structured sentences with zero waste: (1) core purpose, (2) return specification, (3) usage guidance. Front-loaded with the action, includes line breaks for readability, and every sentence earns its place by conveying distinct information not found in other fields.

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?

Despite lacking a formal output schema, the description comprehensively documents the return format and fields. It contextualizes the tool within the broader workflow (referencing get_content/update_content). Minor gap: no mention of error cases (e.g., archived forks) or pagination behavior for forks with many pages.

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 coverage is 100% with the 'id' parameter fully documented as 'Fork ID (returned by create_fork or list_forks),required'. Since the schema carries the full semantic load, the baseline score of 3 applies. The description text does not add additional parameter constraints, examples, or format details 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resource 'fork workspace' and scope 'including its status and list of pages'. The singular 'a fork' combined with the ID parameter clearly distinguishes this from list_forks (which returns multiple forks) and from sibling mutation tools like create_fork or merge_fork.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Use the page id with get_content or update_content to read/edit fork pages.' This helps the agent understand how to use the output and references specific sibling tools. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use get_fork vs list_forks (e.g., 'use this when you have a specific Fork ID').

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