fetchRitorna il testo integrale di un articolo dato il suo id (l'URL restituito da 'search'). / Returns the full text of an article given its id (the URL returned by 'search').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Id/URL dell'articolo |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns full text, implying a read-only operation, but it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or what happens if the id is invalid.
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 with two short sentences (bilingual) that front-load the key functionality. Every word contributes meaning.
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 one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential usage. It could optionally mention the return type or format, but the lack is not critical.
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 description coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining that the id is the URL returned by 'search', which provides context beyond the schema's generic description.
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 ('fetch'/'Ritorna') and resource ('full text of an article') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the id is the URL from 'search'. The bilingual text reinforces understanding.
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 implies usage after 'search' by referencing its output. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: capabilities provides a static overview, fetch retrieves full articles, match_use_case maps needs to capabilities, and search finds articles. No overlap in functionality.
Tool names mix parts of speech and styles: 'capabilities' (noun), 'fetch' (bare verb), 'match_use_case' (verb_noun with underscore), 'search' (bare verb). While each is clear, there is no consistent naming pattern.
Four tools is well-scoped for the server's purpose—providing a service catalogue and searchable operational notes. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary excess or glaring omissions.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for the intended use: viewing the profile, searching articles, fetching full text, and matching use cases. No obvious gaps for a static catalogue and search system.