knowledge_fetch

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the return type (Dict matching KnowledgeFetchResult schema), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling when objects aren't found or latency characteristics.

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?

Uses efficient docstring format with clear Args and Returns sections. The first sentence immediately establishes the operation, and there is no redundant text. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose (operation, parameter docs, return type).

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?

Given the tool has only 2 parameters, good annotations, and an output schema (KnowledgeFetchResult), the description provides appropriate coverage by referencing the output schema rather than duplicating it. Slight gap in not describing error states (e.g., UUID not found), but sufficient for the complexity level.

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?

With 50% schema coverage (object_id has description, collection does not), the description compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section. It adds 'Collection the object belongs to' for the collection parameter which lacks schema documentation, and confirms the UUID semantics for object_id.

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 clearly states the specific action (fetch/retrieve) and resource (single object by UUID from knowledge collection). The 'by UUID' qualifier effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_search or knowledge_query which likely handle text-based queries rather than direct ID lookups.

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?

While 'Fetch a single object by UUID' implies you need the exact identifier, the description lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus knowledge_search (for finding objects) or knowledge_query. The usage is implied but not stated with alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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