get_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: HTML content is converted to clean Markdown, including headers, links, lists, and code blocks. It also clarifies that the 'name' parameter is actually the article ID, which is a useful nuance. However, it does not mention error handling or any rate limits, but for a simple read operation, the disclosed behavior is sufficient.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary action. Each sentence adds valuable information: purpose, output format, usage guidance, and parameter clarification. There is 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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and the description covers purpose, parameter source, output format (Markdown conversion), and the relationship to list_articles. An output schema exists to define the return structure, so the description need not detail every field. The information provided is complete enough for correct 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 schema has one required string parameter 'name' with no description (0% coverage). The description's Args section adds critical meaning: 'name: The article ID (the 'name' field from list_articles)', explaining the source and format of the value. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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' and resource 'single knowledge base article by its ID', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like list_articles. It also explicitly states 'Use this to read the full content of an article found via list_articles', reinforcing its singular role.

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 direct guidance: 'Use this to read the full content of an article found via list_articles', naming the discovery tool and clearly stating when to use this tool. This effectively differentiates it from list_articles and other siblings.

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