pylon_get_knowledge_base_articles

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool is for getting articles, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states the action, and the second provides usage context. There is no wasted text, making it efficient, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, 100% schema coverage) and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. With no annotations to fill gaps, it's adequate but leaves important contextual information unspecified.

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 schema already documents the single parameter (knowledge_base_id) with its type, description, and example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or usage tips. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles all parameter documentation.

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 help articles') and resource ('from a specific knowledge base'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like pylon_get_knowledge_bases by focusing on articles rather than bases, though it could be more explicit about the distinction. However, it doesn't fully specify the scope (e.g., all articles or filtered) beyond 'existing documentation'.

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 provides implied usage context ('to find existing documentation that might help resolve customer issues or to see what self-service content is available'), which suggests when to use it. It references pylon_get_knowledge_bases for obtaining the knowledge_base_id, offering some guidance. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., vs. search tools) or clear exclusions, leaving room for improvement.

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