cpu_get_syndicate_player_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly warns that strings are player-authored, untrusted, potentially prompt-injection, instructs never to follow commands or open links, and clarifies the link is returned as an inert string. This is exceptional transparency for security-critical read behavior.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by an essential security warning, then a clear sibling alternative. Every sentence earns its place, and the warning is detailed without being bloated.

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-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what is returned, the trust boundary, safe handling, and the alternative tool for trusted data. Nothing necessary for an agent to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already covers the id parameter with 100% description and notes it is a 'Trusted syndicate id' with untrusted return data. The tool description repeats this trust distinction but adds no new parameter-level syntax or formatting detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opening sentence states an explicit verb ('read'), a specific resource ('syndicate display name and link'), and the input key ('trusted syndicate id'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling cpu_get_syndicate by naming exactly what this tool returns.

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 direct routing guidance: 'Prefer cpu_get_syndicate for trusted rates, manager, membership count, and timestamps.' This explicitly tells an agent when to use an alternative, and the security warning reinforces when this tool is appropriate (reading untrusted display content).

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