LightCMS

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds return structure ('metadata including title, path, publish status'), soft-deletion handling ('include_deleted'), and workflow concurrency guidance for subsequent operations. Could clarify pagination behavior but solid coverage otherwise.

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 distinct units: purpose/returns (sentence 1), parameter optimization (sentence 2-3), workflow guidance (sentence 4). Zero redundancy; every sentence advances selection or invocation logic.

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?

Compensates well for missing output schema by listing return fields. Covers soft-deletion filtering and bulk workflow integration. Given 5 parameters with full schema coverage, provides sufficient context for correct invocation and result handling.

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 (baseline 3), description adds semantic value explaining the optimization strategy: include_data 'to get full field data... in one call' and include_fields as 'more efficient than include_data', clarifying *why* to use each parameter beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Opens with specific verb 'List' + resource 'content items' + scope 'with optional filters'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_content by noting it returns 'metadata' vs full field data, and contrasts 'per-item get_content calls' with bulk listing capabilities.

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?

Explicitly names alternatives: 'avoid per-item get_content calls' (select this over get_content for bulk), references bulk_update_content for >20 items vs update_content. Provides clear when-to-use for include_data vs include_fields for 'bulk workflows'.

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