agora_knowledge_fetch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one genuinely valuable trait beyond the schema — that returned public-source content is untrusted remote data, a prompt-injection-relevant warning. However, it omits permissions, error behavior for unknown ids, and whether fetching has side effects.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the safety caveat placed second. Nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a fetch tool with an unannotated, undocumented id parameter, the definition lacks where the id comes from, what a missing id does, and how it relates to the sibling snapshot/listing tools.

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 0% for the single snapshot_id parameter, so the schema supplies no meaning. The description partially compensates by stating the id identifies a pinned KnowledgeSnapshot and uses 'by id' wording, but adds no format, source, or provenance detail.

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 (Fetch) and resource (a pinned KnowledgeSnapshot) keyed by id, so the agent knows this is a single-object retrieval rather than a listing or mutation. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling agora_knowledge_snapshot, which the name/description pair leaves ambiguous.

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: no mention of when to prefer this over agora_knowledge_search, agora_list_knowledge_objects, or agora_knowledge_snapshot, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer usage entirely from context.

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