get_kc_instructions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavior: the effective instructions may come from an older version when the active version is empty. This goes beyond the basic 'read' semantics and prevents misinterpretation of the returned content.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose followed by a critical caveat. No redundant words or filler; every sentence adds necessary information.

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 (one parameter) and the description covers the main caveat (active vs older version) that affects result interpretation. With an output schema present, return values are presumably structured. However, it does not address potential empty results or error handling, which reduces completeness slightly.

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 input schema has one parameter, knowledge_cluster_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'a knowledge cluster' but does not add specific meaning to the parameter beyond what the name itself conveys. It fails to explain how to obtain the ID or any format expectations.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('knowledge cluster's instructions') and highlights 'with all versions' as a distinctive feature. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_knowledge_cluster (metadata) and get_kb_instructions (knowledge base instructions).

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 when one needs a knowledge cluster's instructions, but it does not explicitly contrast with get_kb_instructions or other alternatives, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The note about effective text provides contextual guidance but not explicit selection criteria.

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