get_kb_article_visibility

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (returns visibility rules) and adds detail on the content (profiles, groups, users, entities). However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, require no side effects, or mention any permission requirements. Basic behavior is present but richer context is missing.

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 that is concise and efficient. It conveys the purpose and output contents without wasted words, earning a top score for structure.

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 getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It identifies the resource and what the response contains, but lacks contextual guidance on how this tool fits with visibility management siblings or any usage caveats. Not incomplete, but no extra value beyond the basics.

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 references 'un article KB' but does not explicitly explain that the article_id parameter is the identifier for the KB article. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and type, and fails to clarify the parameter's role or format.

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 returns visibility rules of a KB article, listing profiles, groups, users, and entities with access. The verb 'Retourne' specifies the action and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_kb_article (which returns the article itself) and the add/update visibility tools.

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 usage by being a getter for visibility rules, but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like add_kb_article_visibility_profile.

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