knowledge_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the varying return shapes for each detail level ('short', 'medium', 'full') and explicitly advises using detail='full' to get the complete content body. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'complete object' phrasing. However, it doesn't address failure modes or error behavior, but for a simple fetch that's acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause provides useful detail. No redundancy.

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 simple get-by-ID pattern, the description covers the main use case and return variations. Without an output schema, the field lists help. It doesn't mention cancellation or error handling, but those are less critical for a read-only retrieval. The detail defaults are implied by schema but the sentence 'Use detail=\'full\'' slightly conflicts with the schema default of 'full', creating a tiny gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds explicit field mappings for short/medium/full, and a directive for using 'full'. This adds value beyond the schema's enum descriptions, though there's a slight discrepancy between the description's 'short {id,name,contentType}' and the schema's 'id + primary label + status', which could cause minor confusion.

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 'Fetch a single knowledge-base item by ID', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like knowledge_list, knowledge_create, etc., by focusing on single-item retrieval.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need a single item by ID. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives (like knowledge_list for listings) or mention exclusions, so it lacks an explicit when-not-to-use, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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