openwebui_get_knowledge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only retrieval via 'Get', but it does not disclose error handling (e.g., 404 for unknown ID), the exact structure of the file list, or any potential side effects (none expected). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the inherent meaning of 'get'.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the main verb and object, then lists specifics. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately brief for a simple get-by-id operation.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns (name, description, files). It could be more explicit about the exact shape of the file list or error behavior, but for this simple operation the information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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% for the single parameter 'id', which already has a description 'Knowledge base ID'. The tool description does not add new information about the id format, source, or constraints. It only implies that the id refers to a knowledge base, which the schema already states. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'specific knowledge base', and enumerates the returned details (name, description, file list). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_knowledge (listing all) and update/create (modifications).

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 this tool is for retrieving a single knowledge base via its ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like list_knowledge or state when not to use it. There is no guidance on prerequisites or when one tool is preferred over another.

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