automation_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by stating knowledge is reference material, grants no game authority, and does not execute a build, which directly addresses possible agent assumptions about side effects.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then uses a single long sentence to enumerate returned content, which is useful because there is no output schema. It is slightly list-heavy but each element helps clarify what the read returns.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned knowledge fields and adds an important behavioral caveat about game authority and execution. The main missing piece is guidance on acquiring a valid id, but the return-value coverage is otherwise strong.

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%, and the only parameter is merely restated as an 'exact knowledge id'. The description does not explain the id format, where to obtain it, or how the min/max length constraints matter, leaving the sole parameter under-specified.

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 ('one exact knowledge id'), and the word 'exact' implicitly distinguishes this from the sibling search tool. An agent can tell this is a direct retrieval-by-id operation rather than a 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?

The phrase 'one exact knowledge id' implies the tool should be used when the caller already has an id, but it does not explicitly name the sibling search tool or state when not to use this tool. Usage is clear enough by implication but not fully guided.

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