rx_kb_article

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

The 'Только чтение' line merely restates readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior beyond annotations: long text is truncated by max_chars and continuation is fetched via offset, which an agent cannot infer from the hints. It does not cover error behavior (e.g. invalid id) or default limits context, keeping it below 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then how to obtain the id, then pagination, then the read-only note. Dense and waste-free, though the final read-only clause duplicates annotation data.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the returned fields, and it explains the truncation/pagination contract. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid id, empty article), which keeps it from a 5.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents id, offset and max_chars. The description's offset-truncation sentence largely restates what the offset property description already says, adding little semantic value 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?

States a specific resource (company KB article) and enumerates the returned content (areas, tags, author, markdown text), which separates it from rx_kb_search (search) and rx_kb_areas (area listing). An agent can distinguish it from all siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent where the required id comes from — rx_kb_search or the starting article of an area in rx_kb_areas — routing it through the correct sibling tools. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool (e.g. for bulk or listing retrieval), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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