glpi_get_knowbase_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns the full content, which indicates a read-only operation, but it does not mention any additional behaviors such as error handling, authentication requirements, or the effect of the optional 'language' parameter. For a simple get operation, this may be acceptable, but it lacks any caveats or specifics that would enhance transparency beyond the basic action.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the core function. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, containing no filler or redundant information. However, it is extremely brief, which might border on under-specification, but for a simple get tool, it is appropriately concise without being verbose.

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's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description minimally covers the essential purpose. However, it does not inform the agent about when to use this tool over search alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid ID). The lack of usage guidance and behavioral notes means it is not fully complete for an agent to decide optimally. With no annotations and a minimal description, it only meets the basic requirement.

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 input schema provides descriptions for both parameters (id and language), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameters. According to the rubric, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not clarify how the language parameter affects the returned content (e.g., whether it falls back to a default). Thus, it neither adds nor detracts from the schema.

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 tool's purpose: returning the full content of a knowledge base article. It uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and resource ('artigo da base de conhecimento'). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like glpi_search_knowbase and glpi_search_faq, which are for finding articles. The description is specific and unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like glpi_search_knowbase or glpi_search_faq. It implies usage for retrieving a specific article by ID, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool (e.g., 'Use this when you have the article ID' or 'Prefer this over search for direct access'). The lack of explicit usage context makes it only adequate, not superior.

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