get_knowledge_cluster

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the output contents (member knowledge bases, engines, instructions) and that the returned IDs are useful for other tools, which implies a read operation. However, it doesn't disclose potential errors, permissions, or any side effects. For a simple get-like tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise, with two sentences and no redundant wording. It front-loads the core purpose ('KC detail') and then adds usage context. The first sentence is a fragment, but it is efficient. It earns its place without excessive detail.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what the tool returns and provides a usage scenario. The output schema likely covers return value structure, so the description doesn't need to detail that. It reasonably supports selection and invocation.

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 a single parameter (knowledge_cluster_id) with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description doesn't explain the input parameter directly, but it does mention knowledge_base_ids in the output, implying the purpose of the cluster ID. It partially compensates for the lack of schema detail by contextualizing the result, but falls short of fully explaining the parameter semantics.

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 indicates this tool retrieves details of a knowledge cluster, specifically its member knowledge bases, their engines, and the KC instructions. This differentiates it from siblings like get_kc_instructions, which focuses narrowly on instructions, and list_knowledge_clusters, which lists clusters. The use of 'KC detail' is telegraphic but contextually clear, and the tool name reinforces its purpose.

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 second sentence gives explicit usage guidance: fetch this before asking questions if you want to inspect context, since knowledge_base_ids are needed by agent tools. This tells the agent when to use the tool (as a prerequisite) and why, even though it doesn't name specific alternatives or exclusions.

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