okf_get_concept_tool

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

With no annotations, the description correctly carries the behavioral burden: 'Read' signals a read-only operation, and 'frontmatter + body' discloses what the returned concept contains. It does not discuss ambiguity or error cases (e.g., duplicate titles) or a detailed return shape, but the essential side-effect profile is clear.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded before parameter details. There is no filler, and every phrase ('Read', 'one concept', 'frontmatter + body', accepted identifier forms) contributes essential information.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the target identifier options, and the returned content ('frontmatter + body'). The unexplained optional bundle and absence of error/ambiguity behavior are minor gaps that do not block correct invocation when using the required target.

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 provides no field descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must add meaning. It does this for the required target parameter by specifying it can be an id, title, or filename stem, which is exactly what an agent needs to invoke the tool. The optional bundle parameter remains undocumented, preventing a higher score.

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 action verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('one concept') with its composition ('frontmatter + body'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It implicitly differentiates from search and related siblings by targeting a single concept, but does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 statement 'Accepts id, title, or filename stem' gives practical targeting guidance and implies when to use the tool (when you know a concept identifier). However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives such as okf_search_tool or okf_related_tool, and no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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