get_domain_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only says 'Get domain knowledge entries' with no details on permissions, filters, pagination, or what 'entries' entail. The optional 'category' parameter is not mentioned, leaving the behavior partially unknown. This is minimal and lacks useful context beyond the tool's basic function.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. It is concise and easy to parse. However, its brevity borders on under-specification, but it still earns its place by stating the core purpose clearly.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values need not be explained. However, the description lacks information about the optional category parameter and does not differentiate from closely related siblings like extract_domain_knowledge. This makes it minimally adequate but with clear gaps in context.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameters. The two parameters, source_id and category, are entirely undocumented in the description. The phrase 'for a data source' vaguely maps to source_id, but category is completely ignored. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptive text.

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 states the tool's action ('Get') and resource ('domain knowledge entries for a data source'). It is unambiguous but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'extract_domain_knowledge', which might also relate to domain knowledge. The verb and resource are specific enough for basic understanding.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of when to prefer this over extract_domain_knowledge or other sibling tools, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It simply states what the tool does without context.

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