devto_get_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Fetch') and describes the response as Markdown with title, metadata, and body. However, it does not mention what happens for invalid or nonexistent IDs, auth requirements, or rate limits, leaving some uncertainty.

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 compact and well-structured into a one-line summary followed by Args and Returns. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core information: purpose, ID source, and return format. The main omissions are edge-case behavior like 404 handling and whether authentication is required, but these are minor for a straightforward fetch-by-ID operation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining that article_id is an integer, what it represents (the DEV.to article ID), and where to find it (URLs or list_articles). This is sufficient for an agent to correctly populate the only parameter.

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 first sentence names a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('full article details and complete Markdown body'), and the unique selection mechanism ('by its ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools, which operate without a single article ID.

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 states that this tool is for fetching one article by ID and even tells the agent where to obtain the ID ('found in URLs or list_articles'). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for searching or listing, but the intended usage context is clear.

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