article_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. The Korean verb '조회' implies a read-only lookup, suggesting no side effects. However, the description does not disclose return format, error behavior, or other operational details. For a simple get-by-ID, this is somewhat adequate but still minimal.

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, clear sentence with no unnecessary words. It is optimally concise for the tool's simplicity, earning a perfect score.

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 low complexity with one parameter and no output schema. The description states the purpose clearly, and the schema covers the parameter. However, the lack of usage guidance and sibling differentiation, combined with no annotations, leaves the description somewhat incomplete in context. A score of 3 reflects that it's adequate but not thorough.

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 already provides a clear description for the `id` parameter ('아티클 UUID'), and the description text adds no additional parameter information. Given the high schema coverage (100%), a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 (fetch/lookup) and resource (article) with the method (by ID). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `get_article`, which appears to serve a similar purpose, preventing a perfect score.

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. It only states the core function, so usage is implied (fetch an article when you have its ID). No exclusions or alternative references are given, resulting in minimal guidance.

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