article_get

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (title, path, body, etc.), giving agents concrete expectations beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence followed by a parenthesized list of fields. Every word serves a purpose, and it is appropriately terse for a simple retrieval tool.

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 low complexity, presence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description provides the return fields which is helpful. However, it does not clarify parameter constraints (e.g., article_id must be an integer) or potential error conditions.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the parameters 'site' or 'article_id' beyond referencing 'by id.' It fails to add meaning about parameter types, formats, or constraints.

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 action: 'Get full article details by id.' It lists the specific fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like article_create, article_update, and article_delete.

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 marks the tool as read-only, implying it is safe for retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., articles_list) or provide exclusions, relying on context from sibling names.

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