get_kcs

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. It clearly states that the tool returns a Dictionary with named fields (title, Environment, Issue, Resolution, Root Cause), which is meaningful. It stops short of describing error handling or access requirements, but for a simple read operation this is solid.

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 highly concise and well-structured: one opening sentence, a one-line parameter definition, and a one-line return description. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no filler or redundant content.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what parameter it takes, and what it returns. It doesn't address when to prefer this over search_kcs, but that is partially implied by sibling tool names and does not prevent correct selection or invocation.

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?

The input schema only provides the parameter name 'solution_id' with zero description coverage. The description's Args section adds 'The ID of the solution to retrieve', which gives the parameter clear meaning and compensates for the low schema coverage. For a single simple parameter, this is sufficient.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a scoped resource ('a specific solution by ID') and clarifies the intent ('extract structured content'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_kcs (search vs. retrieve) and case-oriented tools.

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 implies usage when you have a solution ID and need its structured content, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over search_kcs or mention any alternatives/exclusions. Usage context is present but not fully developed.

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