Get knowledge document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates it is a read operation ('Retrieve'), which implies no side effects. However, it does not disclose details like error handling (e.g., behavior when topic is not found), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a simple read tool this is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 exceptionally concise, with two sentences that front-load the primary purpose and then provide illustrative examples. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant content. This is ideal for efficient agent parsing.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does (retrieve full content) and what inputs it accepts. It does not specify the return format (e.g., markdown text) or any failure modes, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is not a significant gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to know how to invoke it correctly.

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?

Since schema coverage is 100%, the parameter is already well-documented in the schema with an example. The description adds value by explaining that loose references are accepted and provides additional format examples ('knowledge/api/apim.md'), which the schema does not cover. This goes beyond mere repetition and helps the agent understand the flexibility of the input.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Retrieve' and the resource 'full content of a specific knowledge document', making the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on retrieval of a specific document by topic/path, as opposed to search or list operations.

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 clear context on when to use the tool - when you have a specific topic or path - and gives concrete examples of accepted loose references. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the implication is clear that this is for known references rather than discovery.

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