pylon_get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The description indicates a read operation ('Get') and scopes it to a knowledge base, which implies no side effects. However, it does not explicitly state whether authentication is needed, what happens if the article is not found, or the return format. For a simple get, the description is minimally adequate but lacks richer behavioral context.

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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 with only two parameters, both documented in the schema. The description confirms the purpose and scoping but does not mention what is returned or any edge cases (e.g., missing article/404). With no output schema, a brief note on return value would improve completeness, but the current state is sufficient for an agent to understand the core operation.

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 schema descriptions cover 100% of the parameters (article_id and knowledge_base_id) with clear definitions. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('specific article'), and the scope ('by its ID within a knowledge base'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like pylon_list_articles (which lists multiple articles) and pylon_get_knowledge_base (which gets a knowledge base).

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 when to use it: when you need a single article by ID within a knowledge base. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use pylon_list_articles to search or browse articles'. The context is clear from the wording but no direct guidance is given.

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