content_read_author

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

No annotations provided, so description fully covers behavior: read-only, only published posts, identifier constraint (id or slug, not both), and return summary (single object with bio, social links, optional post count).

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (purpose, use case, identifier note, limitation, returns). Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 single-read tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description adequately covers behavior, usage, constraints, and return type. Missing details like error handling for duplicate identifiers are minor given the clarity of the constraint.

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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explicitly noting mutual exclusivity of id and slug ('Provide either 'id' OR 'slug', not both'), which is a constraint not in the schema. The include parameter's description matches the schema, so only moderate added value.

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 a single public author by ID or slug (read-only)', specifying the action, resource, and identifier. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like content_browse_authors (listing) and content_read_page/tag/post.

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?

Provides explicit use cases (display author profile, get bio/social links) and a clear when-not-to-use condition: 'Only returns authors with published posts. For staff users without published posts, use admin_read_user instead.' This gives direct guidance on alternatives.

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