get_knowledge

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that this is a fetch operation and specifies what is included in the result ('bound evidence citations and relationships'). It does not mention error cases or permissions, but for a simple read operation the description provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name.

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 two lines with a short Args block. It is concise, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 get-by-UUID tool, the description is complete: it states the resource, the identifier format, and the expected result contents. An output schema exists, so the absence of detailed return formatting is acceptable. The description sufficiently equips an agent to select and invoke the 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?

The schema provides only a property name 'knowledge_id' with no description, so the description must compensate. The Args section explicitly explains that knowledge_id is a 'UUID string of the knowledge item', adding precise type and semantic meaning. This fully clarifies the parameter even though the schema coverage is 0%.

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 starts with 'Fetch a specific knowledge item by its UUID', using a specific verb and resource. It also identifies the returned content ('bound evidence citations and relationships'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_evidence or search_knowledge.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you have a specific knowledge item's UUID and need its details, evidence citations, and relationships. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the 'by UUID' scope implies a direct lookup rather than a search, which is a clear context.

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