Get Kcs

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries the burden. It implicitly communicates a read-only operation through 'Get' and notes that it 'extract[s] structured content,' but it does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or any side effects. For a simple get operation, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose and the retrieval-by-ID distinction.

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 is simple, has an output schema, and the main parameter is documented. However, the session_id parameter is entirely unexplained in both the schema and the description, and there is no guidance about when this tool is preferable to search_kcs. These gaps prevent a higher score.

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 only 50%. The solution_id parameter is described in the schema and reinforced by the description, but session_id has no schema description and is not explained in the tool description. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('solution'), and qualifies it as retrieval by ID plus structured extraction. This clearly distinguishes it from the search siblings and from get_case, which targets a different resource.

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 phrase 'specific solution by ID' provides clear context: the tool should be used when an agent already has a solution ID and wants structured content. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended trigger is clear enough.

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