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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the response includes specific fields like HTML content when status is 'done', which adds some context about output behavior. However, it lacks critical details such as whether this is a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps for a tool that fetches data.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and additional details in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the action and output conditions, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral notes.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a data retrieval tool. It hints at output content but doesn't fully specify the return structure, error cases, or side effects. For a tool with two required parameters and no structured output documentation, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure reliable agent usage.

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 has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters (workspace_id and article_id as UUIDs). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between workspace and article or parameter constraints. This meets the baseline score since the schema adequately covers the parameters.

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 full details') and resource ('an article'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'list_articles' or 'export_article', which would require more specific language about what makes this retrieval unique beyond the basic operation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing article ID, or contrast it with similar tools like 'list_articles' for browsing or 'export_article' for different output formats, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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