get_knowledge_topic

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it retrieves content and returns an error if not found, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, mention permissions, or disclose any side effects. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 concise, with a one-line summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail, making it easy to scan.

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 read tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, the required parameter, and the possibility of error. It does not elaborate on the output structure, but that is handled by the schema.

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 0% as the schema has no property descriptions. The description adds minimal clarification: 'topic: The topic name to retrieve.' This is basic but adequate given the single 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 clearly states 'Get saved knowledge for a specific topic' and 'Retrieves the full content of a previously saved knowledge topic.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_knowledge and get_all_knowledge by focusing on a single topic 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_knowledge or get_all_knowledge. There is no explicit context for when-not to use it or mention of prerequisites.

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