get_lwn_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the return format (dictionary with title, author, body, evidence_sources) and mentions 'symbol references' in the purpose line, but does not disclose error handling, pagination, rate limits, or any side effects. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but minimal; it does not add rich context beyond what a typical get-by-ID tool would have.

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 extremely concise: three short sections (purpose, args, returns) with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and every line contributes useful information. The structure is clean and scannable.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter, and the return shape. It does not explicitly mention when to use it (e.g., 'use when you have the article ID'), but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a separate search tool, the completeness is strong. The output schema is noted as existing, so return details are not overly necessary, but the description includes them anyway.

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 only the parameter name and type (article_id: string) with no description. The description compensates by labeling it as a 'Unique LWN article ID' and giving a concrete example ('LWN-900100'), which clarifies the expected format and uniqueness. This adds meaningful value beyond the bare 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 opens with a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve full details and symbol references for an LWN article.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_lwn (which searches) and lookup_symbol (which likely maps symbols), and the focus on a single article by ID is evident.

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 Args section implies that this tool requires a specific LWN article ID, suggesting it is used when you already have the ID. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this instead of search_lwn for discovery, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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