get_content_principles

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false). The description adds value by indicating what content the tool returns and how filtering works, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination, or any other runtime behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the resource, gives concrete content previews, and describes the optional filter. Every part earns its place with no redundant language.

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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context about content and filtering. It is slightly generic with 'and more', and it doesn't mention how 'format' changes the output, but the schema fills that gap. Overall complete but not maximally thorough.

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 input schema already documents both 'format' and 'context'. The description reinforces the contextual filter with additional examples like 'form labels', but the schema already carries most of the parameter meaning, so the value added is slight.

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 names the verb ('get'), the resource ('UX-writing principles'), and enumerates the actual content areas ('clarity over cleverness, active voice, error-message anatomy, inclusive language, voice vs tone'). This makes it easy to distinguish from generic sibling tools like get_principles or get_content_system.

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 use for UX-writing guidance and explains how to filter by context, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this over siblings such as get_principles, get_content_pattern, or get_content_system. There is clear context but no exclusions or alternative routing.

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