get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the output (metadata, state, etc.) but does not clarify if the operation is read-only, any side effects, or prerequisites. As a 'get' tool, it is likely safe, but the description lacks explicit 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, clear sentence that conveys the core functionality without any redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource.

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 (one parameter, no nesting) and has an output schema, so the description covers the main purpose. However, the omission of parameter explanation leaves a gap, making it only adequate.

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 description does not mention the required 'article_id' parameter, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The agent must rely solely on the schema to infer the parameter's purpose, which is insufficient for a minimal viable definition.

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') and the resource ('article'), and lists exactly what is retrieved (metadata, state, outline, full content). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_articles (which likely returns only summaries) and generate_article (create).

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 implies when to use the tool (when full article details are needed), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. Sibling names like list_articles suggest a lighter alternative, but no explicit guidance is given.

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