Read article

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content format (World Anvil BBCode), the link syntax as @[Title](type:uuid), and that template-specific fields vary by article type. It doesn't mention permissions or error behavior, but this is a straightforward read tool and the disclosed details are meaningful.

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, both necessary. The first is front-loaded with the core action and deliverables; the second adds valuable format details without redundancy. No fluff.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully specifies what the response contains (content fields, relations, template-specific fields) and the BBCode/link behavior. For a single-parameter read tool, this is complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 only says 'UUID of the article', but the description adds practical context: uuids can be obtained from link mentions in other articles, making it clear how to source the article_id. This goes beyond the structural definition.

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 opens with 'Read one article in full' which is a specific verb+resource, then enumerates the returned fields (content, sidebar, tags, category, relations, template-specific fields). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_articles or search_articles, which operate at the list level.

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 a clear use case: 'this makes this the way to walk the world's knowledge graph for context' by following @[Title](type:uuid) mentions. It implicitly contrasts with listing/searching tools but does not explicitly mention when not to use it.

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