hb_kb_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Get' clearly implies a non-mutating read, and 'with metadata' hints at the return shape, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, behavior for missing IDs, or what 'metadata' includes. For a simple read the exposure is modest, but the gap is real.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the action and resource come first. It is efficient rather than padded, though it errs slightly toward under-specification.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but thin: the 'with metadata' phrase is the only clue about the response, and nothing covers the optional agent_id's effect or failure modes.

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 both 'id' and the optional 'agent_id' documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning about the ID format or what 'agent filter' actually scopes, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 verb (Get) and resource (a single knowledge entry), and the word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list/search tools hb_kb_list and hb_kb_search. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the retrieval-by-ID vs. query distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetching one entry by ID. There is no statement of when to prefer this over hb_kb_list or hb_kb_search, nor any prerequisite or error condition (e.g. non-existent ID). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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