Get Knowledge Base Details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by specifying exactly what details are returned (article and category counts) and positioning it as a scoping tool before browsing. No contradiction with 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?

Two concise sentences that front-load the core function and include a usage guideline. No redundant information or filler.

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?

For a simple get-by-id tool with read-only annotations, the description adequately explains purpose, return content, and usage context. The lack of an output schema is compensated by mentioning the included counts. It does not specify error behavior, but that is not critical for this tool's simplicity.

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%, with both sys_id and instance well-documented. The description's mention of 'by sys_id' adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter details.

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 gets details of a specific knowledge base by sys_id, including article and category counts. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_knowledge_bases (which lists all KBs) and get_kb_article (which gets article details).

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 a clear use case: 'Use this to understand the scope of a KB before browsing its contents.' It implies when to use this tool (as a precursor to browsing articles/categories) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, the context is sufficient for a straightforward retrieval tool.

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