knowledge_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation and 'as written' signals the content is returned unmodified, which is useful. However, nothing is said about missing/invalid path behavior, permissions, or size/rate constraints, leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the action and the key's origin are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does and roughly what comes back ('as written'), but the return shape and error behavior are underspecified. It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 100% and the single 'path' parameter is already documented, so baseline is 3. The description adds only provenance context ('the address a table printed'), essentially restating the schema's own wording without adding format, validation, or failure semantics.

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 document from Knowledge') and clarifies the lookup key is an address a table printed. It distinguishes the operation from sibling tools implicitly by tying the key to knowledge_table output, though it never explicitly rules out knowledge_table or knowledge_circuit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent must have a path already produced by a table, which suggests a read-after-list workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named. Adequate but leaves the routing inference to the reader.

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