get_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't describe what 'Get' entails—whether it returns full content, metadata, permissions needed, error handling, or if it's a read-only operation. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for this simple 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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error cases, permissions, or how it differs from siblings like 'list_articles'. For a basic retrieval tool, more context is needed to fully guide an agent, especially without annotations or output schema.

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 for parameter documentation. It mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'article_id' parameter in the schema, adding minimal semantic context. However, it doesn't explain the ID format, source, or constraints, leaving the parameter only partially clarified beyond the schema's basic structure.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('knowledge article by ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'list_articles' or 'get_catalog_item', which would require more specific differentiation to achieve a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_articles' for browsing or 'get_catalog_item' for similar retrieval operations, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an existing article ID. This leaves the agent without contextual usage direction.

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