get_container_contents_only

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses behavioral traits: 'Performance: Focused query for container content analysis' suggests optimization for speed or efficiency, and 'Returns: List of contained items with minimal metadata' clarifies output format. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or pagination, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by three concise bullet-like sections (Usage, Performance, Returns) that each add value without waste. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying different aspects of the tool's behavior.

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is fairly complete. It explains the tool's focus on minimal metadata and performance, which helps contextualize its use. However, it lacks details on the 'container_id' parameter semantics, slightly reducing completeness for a read operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention the 'container_id' parameter at all, failing to add meaning beyond the schema. With 1 parameter undocumented, the baseline is 3 since the schema provides structure but no semantic context, and the description offers no parameter details.

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's purpose as 'Retrieves only the items stored in a container' with a specific verb ('retrieves') and resource ('items stored in a container'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_container' by emphasizing 'only the items' and 'without metadata overhead', though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like 'get_container_summary'.

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 'Usage' section provides clear context: 'Get container contents without metadata overhead', indicating this tool is for focused content analysis when minimal metadata is needed. It implies usage over alternatives like 'get_container' that might include more metadata, but doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use or name specific alternatives.

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