get_content_v2

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the description correctly aligns with those. It adds useful context by listing the returned components (main asset, user progression, extended metadata), which goes beyond the annotation info and helps the agent understand what to expect without an output schema.

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 three short lines: the primary purpose is first, then the workspace_id hint, then the return summary. No filler words, and all sentences add value. It is efficient and 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 get-by-ID tool with two parameters and read-only annotations, the description covers the core usage, the return contents, and the prerequisite for obtaining workspace_id. It lacks an explicit contrast with the sibling get_content, but the 'v2 schema' label and the richer return summary partially fill that gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains workspace_id thoroughly by indicating it is the target workspace and how to obtain it, but content_id is left to its name and title only. This partial compensation is helpful but not fully adequate for both parameters.

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 verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'content item by ID' and indicates the v2 schema. It also mentions what is included (main asset, user progression, extended metadata), which distinguishes it from simpler get operations and gives a complete picture of the purpose.

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 provides context that this is the v2 schema, implying it is the updated version compared to get_content, and tells the agent to get workspace IDs from list_workspaces(). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_content or other content-related tools, so it stops short of a full when/not guidance.

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