get_kb_article_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Retourne' implies a read-only operation, and the listed entity types add useful context, but permissions, authorization requirements, and any rate limits are not 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 description is two compact lines with the action and returned entity types front-loaded. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in detail. The description names the visibility categories returned and is sufficient for a simple one-parameter read operation, though it lacks alternative-tool routing guidance.

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 0%, so the description should compensate. 'D'un article KB' implies that article_id identifies the target article, but it does not specify the parameter name, expected format, or type. For a single simple parameter this is minimally adequate.

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 ('règles de visibilité d'un article KB'), and enumerates the returned entity types (profils, groupes, utilisateurs, entités). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling add/update visibility tools, but the read-oriented purpose is clear.

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 alternatives such as add_kb_article_visibility_profile, update_kb_article_visibility_group, or get_kb_article. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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