read_knowledge

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add context—which it does by disclosing that image links are stripped by default and that 'images' restores CDN screenshots of node graphs and editor panels. It doesn't mention response format or error behavior for bad ids, but the key default-off behavior is surfaced.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the id source appears before the optional modifiers. The parenthetical about CDN screenshots is useful but makes the sentence slightly dense.

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 3-parameter read tool with no output schema, it covers the required id source, both optional parameters, and the default image-stripping behavior. Return shape (markdown vs JSON) and invalid-id behavior are unstated, a minor gap given the read-only annotations.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning—and it does for all three: id comes from search_knowledge, heading filters sections by heading substring, and images toggles image-link inclusion (default stripped). That is meaningfully more than the bare types in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one knowledge-base page') and ties the required id back to a named sibling tool, search_knowledge. An agent can distinguish this from search tools without inspecting the schema.

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 id provenance ('the id that search_knowledge returned') implicitly routes the agent to search first, and the optional heading filter is described. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use this or name alternative read paths, 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.