Fetch ONE knowledge card in full (specs table, wiring, alarm codes, consumable part numbers, field notes) by card_id (from search results) or by exact/partial title.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| card_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses partial title matching and the full-card content, but omits behavior when multiple titles match, when both parameters are provided, or error handling. This is a gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and includes all necessary details without redundancy. Every word earns its place.
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 fetch tool, the description covers purpose, content, and lookup identifiers, which is mostly complete. However, it lacks clarification on parameter requirements and edge-case behavior, which is significant given there are no annotations and the schema lists both parameters as optional.
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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by explaining that card_id comes from search results and title can be exact or partial, which goes beyond the bare parameter names. However, it doesn't clarify that at least one parameter is required or precedence when both are given, preventing a 5.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch ONE knowledge card in full' and lists the included content (specs table, wiring, alarm codes, consumable part numbers, field notes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_parts_knowledge and get_brand_overview.
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 indicates when to use the tool by noting 'card_id (from search results)' and specifies the two lookup methods (by ID or exact/partial title). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 5.
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 distinct purpose: search for cards, fetch full card, get overview, list brands, and submit inquiry. No overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern with underscores (get_brand_overview, get_part_card, list_brands, search_parts_knowledge, submit_inquiry). Consistent and predictable.
5 tools is well-scoped for a knowledge base server. It covers browsing, searching, retrieving details, and contacting support without being too sparse or bloated.
The tool surface fully supports the intended domain: overview, search, full card retrieval, brand listing, and human inquiry. No obvious missing functionality for this knowledge base use case.