get_content_by_path

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and endpoint path, which are not in the annotations. However, it does not describe response format, error handling, or any additional behavioral nuances. Given the annotations, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose and endpoint. It contains no filler and is structured logically: purpose, HTTP method, and argument. It earns a 4 for being succinct without being wasteful, though it could benefit from a bit more detail without losing efficiency.

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?

The description is very brief and lacks context about what constitutes a 'StaticResource', how the path should be formatted, or how this differs from the similar sibling get_by_path. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the tool's purpose and parameter semantics are insufficiently elaborated for an agent to use it correctly in ambiguous situations.

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?

There is a single parameter 'path' with 0% schema description coverage. The description says 'path: Path parameter.' which is essentially redundant with the parameter name and does not explain expected format, examples, or how the path should be constructed. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, and with no schema description, this is a significant gap.

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 states 'Read StaticResource.' which indicates a specific action (read) on a resource type (StaticResource), and the tool name get_content_by_path clarifies the resource is content accessed by path. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_by_path, which might serve a similar purpose. The verb and resource are clear enough for a basic understanding.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or when to choose this over similar tools like get_by_path. It simply provides the endpoint and argument, leaving the agent without context on appropriate usage scenarios.

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