get_knowledge_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. The verb 'Read' clearly implies a non-destructive operation, and the note about snippets vs. full text adds relevant behavioral context. It does not explicitly state it is read-only or mention any side effects, but the absence of such warnings for a read tool is acceptable. Slightly less than perfect due to not explicitly labeling as read-only, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanation is embedded in the args list, and the usage note is in a separate paragraph. Every sentence contributes; there is no fluff. The structure makes it easy to skim.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description covers when to use it, how to obtain the parameter, and why it's necessary (snippet insufficiency). For a simple read tool, everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly is included. No gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the parameter 'number' with an example ('KB0000003') and states it is 'obtained from search_knowledge', giving both format and source. This adds meaningful value beyond the bare schema. A full regex pattern would be even better, but the example and source are sufficient.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('full text of one knowledge article'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with search_knowledge's snippet. An agent can immediately understand the tool's role.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: before repeating an article's guidance or applying it to an incident. It also names the alternative (search_knowledge) and explains why that is insufficient (snippet is not the whole procedure). This is textbook usage guidance.

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