Get Knowledge Base Article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing beyond a safe-read implication. It says nothing about required permissions, what happens on an invalid/missing note_id, or whether access is scoped to the workspace. For a zero-annotation tool this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity verges on under-specification for a tool with no annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is not required, and the two required parameters are fully documented in the schema. Still, with no annotations the description omits access-scoping and failure behavior that an agent would benefit from knowing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents note_id as a UUID and workspace_name as the query workspace. The description adds no format, scoping, or default information beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Knowledge Base article') scoped to a lookup by ID. The 'by ID' qualifier implicitly separates it from list_knowledge_base_articles and search_workspace, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 'by ID' phrasing implies usage (call this when you already have an article UUID rather than a search query), which is adequate routing context. However, no PREREQUISITES or explicit alternatives are stated, so the agent must infer when to prefer this over list_knowledge_base_articles.

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