kb_get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns the full markdown of a document, which is the primary behaviornovel. It notes it is 'fast, no LLM involved,' which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected for a get), error behavior, or performance characteristics beyond speed. It 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 a single, concise sentence that immediately states the purpose and key constraint. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch' and resource. It avoids fluff and is highly efficient.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description explains the parameter's domain and the output type (markdown). There is no output schema beyond the tool's own, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks information on error cases (e.g., document not found) and the exact format of the 'doc' identifier. It is complete enough for a basic call but not deeply robust.

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?

The schema has one parameter 'doc' with no description, and the description covers 0% of the schema. The description elaborates on what the parameter accepts (source_id or file name) but does not explain the format, required syntax, or examples. This is a partial improvement over the schema, which is empty, but it's insufficient for unambiguous use.

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 tool fetches the full markdown of a knowledge document, specifying the identifier (source_id or file name). It distinguishes this from siblings like kb_ask and kb_search by emphasizing 'full markdown' and 'no LLM involved,' which is specific. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 the tool is for direct retrieval by identifier, contrasting with search/ask tools that may involve LLM or querying. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over kb_search or kb_ask, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. The phrase 'no LLM involved' hints at use cases but is not explicit guidance.

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