get_kb_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read ('Retourne le détail complet') but omits whether visibility restrictions apply (relevant given sibling visibility tools), whether it errors on unknown/missing articles, and what the returned detail includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than true concision, and the French text sits inconsistently alongside the English sibling toolset.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the description should do more work. For a lookup tool it is not catastrophic, but key details – visibility behavior, error cases, and parameter meaning – are all absent.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for article_id and the description says nothing about the parameter's format, source, or constraints. The intent ('un article') hints at an identifier, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter as it ideally should when coverage is this low.

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 ('Retourne') and resource ('le détail complet d'un article de la base de connaissances'), which maps cleanly to get_kb_article. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_solution, search_kb_articles, or list_kb_articles, so the boundary is left to 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus search_kb_articles or list_kb_articles, nor any stated prerequisites such as needing a known article_id. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.

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