knowledge_get

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 doesn't explain what 'source-backed' means behaviorally, whether this is a read-only operation (likely given 'retrieve'), what happens if the message has no knowledge record, or any error/edge-case behavior. The description adds minimal behavioral context.

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 with no filler. It's efficient, though arguably so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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?

There is an output schema present, which removes the need to describe return values. The 2 parameters are minimal and somewhat self-explanatory. However, for a retrieval tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the lack of any behavior detail (what happens on lookup failure, whether it returns all knowledge or filtered) makes it incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain either parameter. account_id and message_id are self-evident from their names, but the description doesn't clarify the relationship between them or any format expectations, leaving the agent to infer from titles alone.

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 states it retrieves a 'source-backed knowledge record for a message,' which gives a clear verb+resource. However, the term 'source-backed knowledge record' is somewhat jargon-heavy and unclear without further context, and it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool knowledge_search.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus knowledge_search or vector_search. The sibling tools include several search/retrieval tools, and the description provides no comparison or exclusions to help the agent choose between them.

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