pylon_get_knowledge_base

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a specific knowledge base by its ID' without revealing potential behaviors such as error handling (e.g., 404 if not found), return format, permissions, or read-only guarantee. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation, but no additional context is offered.

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, complete sentence that front-loads the action and the key qualifier. There is zero extraneous content; every word contributes to clarity.

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 extreme simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is sufficient for an agent to know what the tool does and what input to provide. It lacks return format or error behavior, but for a simple get-by-ID tool, the context is adequately complete.

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% for the single parameter, knowledge_base_id, which is well described in the schema. The description repeats 'by its ID' but does not add extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'knowledge base', and the specific scope 'by its ID'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pylon_list_knowledge_bases, which lists all bases, and pylon_get_article, which targets a different resource. The purpose is unambiguous and directly tied to the tool's name.

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 specific knowledge base ID, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., using list_knowledge_bases if you don't have the ID). There is no exclusion or alternative guidance, but the simple scope makes the intended usage reasonably clear.

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