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 article is fetched 'as plain text ready for reading', which adds context about the output format. However, it lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if the path is invalid), performance (e.g., speed or size limits), or side effects, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args:' section that efficiently explains parameters without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and there is no wasted text, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks information on return values (since no output schema exists), error conditions, or dependencies on sibling tools. This leaves some gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for both parameters: 'path' is explained as 'the ZIM entry path (as returned in search results, e.g., ``A/Aspirin``)', and 'zim' is described as 'optional filename or path of the ZIM to read from' with behavior when omitted. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it could include examples or constraints for 'zim'.

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 specific action ('Fetch a single article by path') and resource ('article'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_libraries' (which lists libraries) and 'search' (which searches across content). It also specifies the output format ('as plain text ready for reading'), which further clarifies its purpose.

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 usage by mentioning 'as returned in search results' for the path parameter, suggesting it should be used after a search. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_main_page' or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about the ideal context.

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