contentful_get_entry

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

Annotations already fully declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the description has a lower bar. It still adds nothing beyond them: no note that space_id/environment determine which entry is resolved, that environment defaults to master, or what the response shape is. For a cross-space, open-world fetch this is thin.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, and every word carries meaning. Nothing to trim.

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 simple by-id fetch with full schema coverage and complete annotations, the essentials are covered. Since there is no output schema, the description could have said what an entry object looks like or noted that space/environment scoping applies, leaving a modest gap.

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 all four parameters including access_token, space_id, and environment are documented in the schema. The description only restates the entry_id parameter, adding no semantics beyond what structured data already provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Contentful entry') with the identifying key ('by id'). This implicitly contrasts with the sibling contentful_list_entries, but the description never names that sibling or otherwise explicitly delineates the boundary.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the prerequisite (you must already have an entry id, so this is a follow-up call rather than a discovery call). However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of contentful_list_entries as the alternative for discovery.

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