Get Content Item

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without revealing any additional traits. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens on error, response format, or any rate limits. The 'get' verb implies read-only, but no further transparency is offered.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It contains no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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 tool's simplicity (single required parameter) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any mention of optional response customization (like include/exclude fields) or return value details, and with no output schema, the agent might not know what to expect beyond 'the content item'. It is adequate but not complete.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter details. Each parameter has a description in the schema (e.g., item_id as 'The unique identifier for the content item'), so the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Get a specific content item by ID' clearly states the verb (get), resource (content item), and scope (specific by ID), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_content_feed (feed) and search_content (search). The phrase 'specific' implies a single item, which differentiates it from bulk operations.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer from the name and siblings that this is for fetching a single item by ID.

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