get-knowledge-by-id

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full payload details' but does not explain what happens with invalid IDs, whether the operation is read-only (implied but not stated), or any limits on the number of IDs. This is a significant gap for a fetch operation.

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 three succinct sentences, each serving a purpose: stating core functionality, clarifying the intent to inspect complete information, and providing operational guidance. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff.

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 existence of an output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description successfully covers the essential dimensions of purpose and usage. However, because annotations are absent, some behavioral expectations (error handling, authentication) are left unaddressed, preventing a perfect score.

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 adds value by linking the 'ids' parameter directly to the 'id' field from search-knowledge, providing data flow context beyond what the schema offers. This elevates parameter understanding.

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 'Retrieve specific knowledge items by their point IDs' with 'full payload details', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search-knowledge (which likely returns summaries) and store/delete operations. The verb 'retrieve' is specific and the resource is well-defined.

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 gives clear context: it is for inspecting complete information about stored items, and explicitly directs the user to use the 'id' field from search-knowledge results. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclude other tools, the usage scenario is well established.

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