get_kb_article

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

Even though readOnlyHint is already set, the description adds concrete behavioral details: no side effects, a header line with metadata fields, HTML-to-plain-text conversion, and truncation with a marker when cut. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of the response without contradicting annotations.

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 organized into purpose, usage guidance, and behavior, with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the core function and places important usage and truncation details where they are easy to find.

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 two-parameter read-only tool, the description is complete: it names the input forms, explains when to use it, describes the output format, and warns about truncation. The presence of an output schema further reduces the need for the description to detail return values.

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 fully documents both the article parameter (number or URL) and max_chars (range, default, truncation-marker hint). The description reinforces these details in context but adds little beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full text of one AVEVA knowledge base article') and lists the article sections it covers. It clearly differentiates from the sibling tools by focusing on full-text retrieval rather than search or product listing.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use the tool: after search_pi_kb when an excerpt looks relevant, or directly when a user supplies an article number or support link. It also explains why reading the full article is necessary, because search excerpts are truncated and routinely omit the fix.

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