Get Content Items

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: 'results are stratified across difficulty levels for even coverage' when no difficulty filter is set. This contextualizes a potential surprise in the returned data beyond what the annotation conveys.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. It states the core function first and places the important stratification caveat in the second sentence, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the readOnly annotation and fully documented parameters, the description is nearly complete. It explains the main behavior and a non-obvious default. It could be slightly richer by hinting at return format or providing an example, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the generic nature of 'content items.'

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 sufficiently documents all four parameters. The description briefly names the filter options (difficulty, topic, type) but does not add meaning beyond the schema fields. The baseline of 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?

The description clearly states what the tool does: 'Returns content items' with optional filters by difficulty level, topic, or type. It also highlights a distinguishing behavior—stratification when no difficulty filter is set—which separates it from the many sibling get_* tools.

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 when to use the tool: when you need content items, optionally with filters. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools like cl_get_reading_questions or cl_get_mystery_items, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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