AxKnowledgeBase_get_private_knowledge_base_paper_markdown

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clarifies the output form (markdown, reading order) and scope (private graph vs. public graph), which is genuinely useful. However, it does not explicitly state that this is a side-effect-free read, whether private-graph access requires special permissions, or how missing/invalid ids behave. It is not misleading, and the rendering details add real value, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Two sentences do all the work: the first states purpose and differentiation, the second covers id provenance and points to the right sibling sources. Every clause earns its place, and the key scoping fact (private graph, same rendering as sibling) is front-loaded.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essentials: what it reconstructs, the exact rendering contract, differentiation from the public sibling, and id provenance. The main omissions are behavioral notes such as read-only/permission assumptions for the private graph and error behavior for invalid ids, which would matter for a no-annotation tool.

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%, so the schema already documents doc_id as the id returned by list_private_knowledge_base_papers or search_private_knowledge_base. The description adds only the minor detail that the id comes from a search result's 'metadata,' which mostly restates the schema. With full schema coverage, 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 first sentence names a specific action (reconstruct), a concrete resource (one paper's full content as markdown in reading order), and a distinct source (the organization's private knowledge graph). It explicitly names the closest sibling, get_knowledge_base_paper_markdown, and distinguishes the two via 'different graph,' so an agent can reliably tell them apart without inspecting either 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 description names the alternative tool and the exact condition that separates them ('Same rendering as get_knowledge_base_paper_markdown, different graph'), giving clear routing context. It also tells the agent exactly where to obtain the required doc_id — list_private_knowledge_base_papers or a search_private_knowledge_base result's metadata. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g., 'use the public version for public papers'), so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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