Get website content

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

Annotations already mark as read-only and open-world. The description adds the behavior of converting to Markdown and retrieving public/published content, which is transparent. No side effects mentioned, but none are expected given 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 sentence, concise, and front-loaded with the core purpose. No unnecessary words, well-structured.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it retrieves, by what identifier, and the output format (Markdown). It also notes restriction to public/published content, which is useful context. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains the return.

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 schema descriptions for both parameters are complete (slug format and example, contentType enum with default). The description doesn't add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it's adequately covered but not enhanced.

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 a single page or post by WordPress slug and converts it to Markdown. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_content and list_content by focusing on retrieval of a specific item.

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?

It implies when to use (when you have a specific slug and want content) and hints at alternatives via 'one' vs. list/search. However, it could explicitly state to prefer search_content for searching or list_content for listing, but it's mostly clear.

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