get_article

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read operation, but it does not state what happens when the sys_id does not exist, whether the result exposes variables/body content, or any other non-obvious behavior. Safety cannot be inferred from structured data here, leaving a gap despite the operation being a simple retrieval.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words, fully front-loaded with the subject and intent. Every element earns its place and no filler is present.

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 simple single-fetch tool with one schema-covered parameter and no output schema, the one-liner is largely sufficient. It is missing only marginal details such as the not-found behavior and explicit differentiation from sibling retrieval tools, which keeps it just short of fully complete.

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 100% — the parameter article_id is already documented as 'sys_id of the article'. The description's mention of 'by sys_id' restates what the schema conveys without adding syntax, constraints, or format details, so it does not meaningfully exceed the baseline it is already given.

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?

'Fetch a single knowledge article by sys_id' names a specific verb (Fetch), a resource (knowledge article), a cardinality (single), and an accessor (sys_id). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_articles by the 'single' qualifier, so an agent can tell this from list/create/update/publish variants without extra inference.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_articles for multiple articles or get_catalog_item for a different resource type. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or situational notes, so the agent must infer usage context on its own.

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