get_content_principles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by listing example principles (clarity, active voice, etc.) and the filtering behavior. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise, consisting of two efficient sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately explains filtering capability. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the necessary information: what it returns, how to filter, and example contexts. It is sufficiently complete to guide correct usage.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both 'format' and 'context' parameters. The description adds specific examples for context (e.g., 'error messages') and implies filtering, which enhances understanding beyond the schema. The format parameter is explained in the schema, and the description doesn't repeat it, so the added value is moderate but meaningful.

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 retrieves 'UX-writing principles' and can be filtered by writing context. The verb 'Get' and resource 'content principles' are specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_principles' and 'get_content_pattern' by explicitly mentioning UX-writing context.

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 explains filtering by context and omitting to get all, but lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_principles' or 'get_content_pattern'. It provides clear context for usage but no exclusions or comparisons.

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