Get system, principle or learning note

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only operation against a closed knowledge base. The description adds useful context about the content returned for each concept type, but it does not explain pagination behavior or response format beyond implying that results may be long.

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 front-loaded sentence that identifies the tool's scope immediately and uses its parenthetical details to clarify the three concept categories. Every clause contributes useful information without repetition.

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?

For a read-only retrieval tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description gives enough information about what content is returned. It omits explicit pagination details, but page and max_chars are documented in the schema, so the remaining gap is minor.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining what the system, principle, and learning note categories contain, which helps an agent choose the appropriate type filter rather than just reading the enum values.

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 states a specific retrieval action and names the three concept categories it returns: system, principle, and learning note. It clearly distinguishes concept content from the sibling retrieval tools by describing what kinds of resources are covered, though it does not explicitly contrast those siblings by 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 phrase 'Full content' implies this tool should be used to retrieve details after a broader search or listing, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus bjj_search, bjj_list, bjj_get_technique, or bjj_get_position. Usage is inferable from the description, but not fully routed.

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