Get Knowledge Base Article

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description adds value by disclosing that HTML is stripped to plain text and that metadata is returned. This provides behavioral context beyond the safety annotations, though it does not cover error handling or authentication specifics.

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 front-loaded with the main action, followed by concise parameter docs and a return statement. Every sentence contributes, with no fluff or repetition of annotations.

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 tool with good annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and return format (plain text with metadata). It lacks details on failure behavior or specific metadata fields, but those are minor in the context of a straightforward fetch 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's parameter explanations (identifier format, response_format output) largely mirror the schema and add no extra semantic meaning beyond what is already present.

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 tool fetches the full content of a knowledge base article by KB number or sys_id, which is specific and distinguishes it from generic get_record or search_knowledge siblings. The verb 'Get' and resource 'knowledge base article' are explicit, with identifier format details.

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 when full article content is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. A sibling tool like search_knowledge likely exists for finding articles, so explicit guidance such as 'use this after search_knowledge to retrieve full content' would improve this dimension.

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