get_knowledge_point

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses the returned payload ('解释、例句、表格、溯源'), which adds value beyond the free-form object, and '获取' implies a read-only operation. It does not state permission requirements, behavior for a missing/invalid id, or failure modes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the resource and the trigger condition (id) come first.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with an output schema, so return-value shape is already covered by structured data and the description appropriately summarizes payload content. The main gap is the absence of any comparison to the search sibling.

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% for the single kp_id parameter, which is typed only as an integer. The description partially compensates by indicating the parameter is a knowledge-point id ('按 id 获取单个知识点'), but adds no format, range, or resolution details.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: retrieve a single knowledge point's full markdown by id. The word '单个' (single) implicitly contrasts with the sibling search_knowledge_points, but the description never names that alternative, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase '按 id 获取' implies the prerequisite that a kp_id must already be known, which is useful routing context. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs search_knowledge_points or any exclusion condition.

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