Read a knowledge article

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation as read-only, so the description need not restate that. It adds the valuable behavioral detail that only published articles are accessible and that the ID is stable, but it does not go further (e.g., error behavior, permissions). This is sufficient but not rich, similar to the get_calls example.

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 sentence of nine words, perfectly front-loaded with the action and object. Every word adds value: 'published' and 'stable ID' are meaningful constraints. There is zero redundancy or waste.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read operation with a provided output schema and read-only annotation. The description adequately captures the essential behavior (reading a specific published article by ID) and constraints. No additional return-value explanation is needed because the output schema exists. The tool is simple enough that the description is 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. The description clarifies that 'article_id' is a 'stable ID', which helps distinguish it as an identifier rather than a search query. However, it lacks format examples or additional context beyond what the schema's name and length constraints already imply.

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 the specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as a 'knowledge article' with the constraints 'published' and 'by its stable ID'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like knowledge_search (which searches) and knowledge_create_draft (which creates).

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 the tool is used when you have the stable ID of a published article, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives such as knowledge_search for discovery or knowledge_create_draft for creating. The usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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