get_concept

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds value by disclosing the return composition (frontmatter, Markdown body, links), which is not covered by annotations. It doesn't mention error behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action ('Read one valid OKF concept') and followed by the relevant output details. No wasted words, every phrase adds value.

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 operation with only four parameters, full schema coverage, and informative annotations, the description is sufficient. It clarifies the conceptual resource and return contents. It doesn't detail response format, but the absence of an output schema makes a slight extra detail desirable; still, the core context is complete.

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 fully documents all four parameters, including the anyOf selection logic. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so it receives the schema-covered baseline of 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and names the resource 'OKF concept', making it clear this tool retrieves a single concept's full content. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_concepts and search_concepts by explicitly targeting one concept, and mentions the returned components (frontmatter, Markdown body, links), which adds specificity.

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 for reading a single concept by its ID or URI, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_neighbors or get_subgraph, nor does it mention when not to use this tool. The context signal of many sibling tools makes the lack of explicit alternative guidance a noticeable gap.

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