Knowledge Get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no note on behavior for a missing/unknown id, permissions, or response shape – so it contributes no extra behavioral context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably so terse that it forgoes cheap opportunities to clarify usage.

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 two-parameter read whose annotations carry the safety profile and whose schema documents every field, the description is minimally sufficient. There is no output schema, so the agent learns nothing about what a successful fetch returns, which leaves a gap.

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%, and the schema itself explains both knowledgeId and organizationId (including pointing to organization_list). The description's 'by id' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('knowledge entry') scoped by id, so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like knowledge_search or knowledge_source_get, leaving the reader to infer the boundary.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance and never mentions alternatives such as knowledge_search (for lookup by content) versus this id-based fetch. The only implicit signal is that it requires an id.

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