get_subcontent

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

The description states it returns a list of items, which aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not mention side effects or side-effect-free behavior explicitly, but the read-only nature is clear from 'List' and the annotation. The description adds context about pagination (cursor, page_size) and the structure of the response, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 concise and well-structured. It provides a brief introductory sentence, followed by a clear parameter list with inline explanations, and ends with the return format. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 includes the return format ('Returns {"items": [...], "cursor": ...}') and explains the purpose of the cursor for pagination. These details are not in the schema or annotations, making the description complete for an agent to understand the tool's output and usage without additional context.

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?

All six parameters are explained in the description, either directly in the parameter list (workspace_id, content_id, category_name, page_size, cursor, order) or through context (e.g., the default values for page_size and order). The description covers the schema fully, with no parameter left undocumented.

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 action: 'List the subcontent items nested inside a collection, page by page.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the resource ('subcontent items') and scope ('nested inside a collection'), distinguishing it from other content-related tools like list_contents or get_content.

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 description explains exactly what the tool does, including pagination behavior and the return format. While it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the purpose is self-evident from the name and description, and the parameter explanations (e.g., category_name for 'Content' vs 'Asset') provide sufficient guidance for when to use it.

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