get_content_record

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is a read, highlights the append-only nature of the event history, and notes the default inclusion of events. However, it does not mention authentication needs, return format, pagination, or error behavior, which are relevant for an unannotated tool.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read a content snapshot') and then adds the key default behavior. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary explanation.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the main purpose and default event-history behavior, but it leaves return shape, slug semantics, and any operational constraints implicit. More context would be needed to make invocation fully reliable without inspecting other documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'by default, its complete append-only event history' clarifies that include_events=true controls whether history is returned. However, the required 'slug' parameter is not explained at all beyond the schema, leaving its format and role implicit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Read a content snapshot and, by default, its complete append-only event history.' It clearly conveys that the tool retrieves a content record and optionally its event history. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similarly named sibling 'find_content_record', so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need a content snapshot and/or its append-only event history. It gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like find_content_record or search_content_archive, and it provides no exclusionary conditions.

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