get_content

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that articles can be 'very long and token-intensive', which is a key behavioral trait. It also states output format ('plain text, no HTML'). Missing details about potential errors or exactness of title matching, but overall informative.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first sentence states purpose and output format, second provides usage guidance and sibling reference, third warns about length. No redundant information. Well front-loaded.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and simple parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and a behavioral warning. It could mention if the tool returns an error for missing titles, but completeness is adequate for the complexity level.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). Description adds value: for 'title' it notes 'spaces are automatically converted', and for 'zim_file' provides an example format. These extras help beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve the complete text content of an article from a ZIM file'. It specifies returns 'plain text (no HTML)' and distinguishes from sibling 'get_content_summary'. The verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'complete text content of an article from a ZIM file' are specific.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use ('need full article details') and when not ('for quick overviews, use 'get_content_summary' instead'). Also includes a warning about token intensity, guiding agents on resource implications.

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