article_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds value by listing the specific fields returned (title, path, body, etc.) and confirming read-only behavior. No additional behavioral details are needed given the coverage of 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 sentence that efficiently conveys purpose and return fields. It is well-structured but could benefit from slightly more detail without being verbose.

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 and low-complexity. The description covers the main purpose and return fields. However, it fails to explain the site parameter, which is required but not mentioned, leaving a gap in context for correct usage.

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. It mentions 'by id' for article_id but completely omits any explanation of the site parameter. With two required parameters, this is insufficient guidance for an agent to understand how to populate them correctly.

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 'Get full article details by id' with a specific verb and resource. It lists returned fields and explicitly marks it as read-only. Among many article-related sibling tools (create, delete, update, list), it uniquely identifies this as a retrieval operation.

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 indicates this is a read-only operation, which implicitly suggests it's for reading rather than modifying. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs sibling tools like articles_list or when not to use it. The minimal context leaves room for ambiguity.

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