superpos_get_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'including its full value,' implying a complete return, but lacks details on idempotency, safety, authentication requirements, or side effects. The behavior is minimally disclosed.

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 single-sentence description is very concise and front-loaded, stating the core action immediately. However, it could add brief parameter clarification without harming conciseness, so it is slightly under-informative for the structure.

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 presence of an output schema and 2 parameters (1 optional), the description is adequate but not thorough. It omits explanation of the optional hive_id parameter and how it affects the retrieval. For a simple get tool, it meets minimum completeness but has 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 references 'by id' but does not explicitly map to 'entry_id' or explain the optional 'hive_id' parameter. The meaning of 'full value' is vague regarding parameter scope.

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 retrieves a single knowledge entry by ID, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_knowledge or list_knowledge that handle multiple entries. The verb 'Get' and resource 'knowledge entry by id' are 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_knowledge or list_knowledge. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or any context for optimal usage, leaving the agent to infer without support.

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