akb_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full content with metadata, implying a read operation. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur (e.g., destructive action) or describe error handling for invalid URIs. Still, the behavior is largely transparent given the simple nature.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers prerequisites and versioning adequately. It does not specify error handling or the exact structure of 'full content with metadata', but this is acceptable given the tool's straightforward nature. Slightly more detail on return format would improve completeness.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds only minor context about version usage (from akb_history), but this is also present in the schema. Thus, the description provides marginal additional meaning 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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving a document by URI and returning full content with metadata. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like akb_browse (browsing) and akb_search (searching) by explicitly stating that those tools should be used first to obtain the URI.

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 explicit guidance on prerequisites: using akb_browse or akb_search to obtain the URI, and optionally using akb_history to get a commit hash for previous versions. This helps the agent select the correct tool and understand the workflow.

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