kotaku_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that Kotaku articles are public and free to read, that the full body is returned, and that the tool is a read-only content fetch. This goes beyond the schema and gives an agent confidence about access and scope, though it does not mention error behavior or canonicalization details.

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 with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second adds value by clarifying public access, the return of the full body, and the required URL type. Every sentence 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 single-parameter, read-only article fetcher, the description is largely complete: it states the input, the return contents (metadata and body paragraphs), and access characteristics. Since there is no output schema, a slightly more detailed return breakdown would be helpful, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already describes the `url` parameter as a 'Canonical Kotaku article URL' with 100% coverage. The description repeats the notion of a canonical article URL but adds no format, normalization, or example guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Kotaku article content.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling article tools for other outlets (nzherald_article, nydailynews_article, etc.) and from related Kotaku tools like kotaku_headlines and kotaku_news by specifying it returns full article body paragraphs from a canonical URL.

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 context is clear: use this tool when you have a canonical Kotaku article URL and need the article's metadata and full body. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the single URL parameter and the distinction from headline/news tools make the intended use unambiguous.

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