retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the 'low-level fetch' framing and implies it returns raw content without metadata or back-references, but no additional behavioral details like empty results or error handling are provided. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the important routing guidance about `recall` appears second. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only, idempotent fetch tool with fully described parameters and explicit sibling routing, the description is nearly complete. It stops short of specifying response shape, but the absence of an output schema and the intentionally low-level nature make that acceptable.

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 100%, with both `kbid` and `docid` already documented in the schema. The description only repeats the notion of fetching 'by identifier' and adds little beyond the schema.

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 low-level fetch operation targeting a section or document by identifier, and contrasts it with `recall`. This clear differentiation makes it easy for an agent to distinguish this tool from the many sibling retrieval-like tools such as recall, content, and search.

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 explicitly says that for AI agent workflows, `recall` should be preferred because it includes metadata, context, and back-references. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance and names the alternative tool directly.

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