get_content_by_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states what is returned, but does not mention that it is read-only, any permissions required, or error handling behavior (e.g., what happens if the path doesn't exist). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 three concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, the second summarizes return values, and the third gives path format. Every sentence contributes necessary information without redundancy.

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 1-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the purpose, return values, and path format. However, it could benefit from explicitly stating read-only behavior or error handling, so it is not a perfect 5.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'path' parameter with an example, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explicitly stating the path prefix '/Library/' and emphasizing it as a library path, which provides a useful constraint beyond the schema example.

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 the tool's function: 'Look up a content item by its library path.' This is a specific verb plus resource, and the mention of returning the item's ID, name, type, and parent info helps distinguish it from sibling tools like get_folder or get_dashboard.

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 provides clear context by stating that paths start with '/Library/' and that the tool looks up by path. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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