Open

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

Even without annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it returns specific fields, handles unknown IDs with an error, and explains how `raw` completeness relates to `body_state`. It also clarifies the meaning of 'complete', 'partial', and 'absent', and warns against treating partial content as the full article.

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 well-structured with clear paragraphs, front-loading the core purpose and then explaining return fields, body-state semantics, and the `kb` scoping rule. Each paragraph adds necessary information without redundancy, and the length is justified by the complexity of the behavior described.

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 lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the returned fields, error behavior, the meaning of `body_state` values, the role of `payload`, and the importance of `kb`. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 description provides crucial semantics for `kb`: it must be the value from the hit card, and it scopes the atom ID to one knowledge base. It also explains the consequence of opening a foreign ID without `kb`. While `atom_id` is not explicitly defined, its meaning is evident from the tool's purpose and the schema's required field.

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's function: follow an atom's pointer and return the raw snapshot text and source URL. It also distinguishes this tool from `search` by explaining that `search` only routes the agent to the atom, while this tool provides the actual content to reason from.

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 explicit guidance on when to call this tool: before citing or asserting anything an atom says. It also explains the pre-citation check, instructing the agent to attribute partial content and send the reader to the source URL, and warns about the `kb` parameter needing to match the hit card carried.

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