get_knowledge_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description aligns by stating 'Get the full content'. It adds the context of returning full content and identification method, which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations provide. No contradictions.

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 sentence of 14 words, front-loaded with the action and essential details. Every word contributes to clarity with no unnecessary content.

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 simple nature of the tool (single parameter, no output schema, annotations covering safety), the description is sufficient for an agent to understand its purpose and usage. It could be enriched with mention of any access restrictions or return format, but for a retrieval tool, it is largely complete.

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 the parameter 'number_or_sysid' described as 'Article number (KB...) or sys_id'. The description rephrases this without adding additional meaning, so it meets the baseline expectation of 3.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'knowledge article', and the identification method by number or sys_id. It distinguishes this retrieval tool from sibling tools like search_knowledge, update_knowledge_article, and create_knowledge_article, which have different purposes.

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 explains how to identify the article but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the context implies that this is for retrieving full content, it lacks exclusions or comparisons to similar tools such as search_knowledge for searching or get_record for generic retrieval.

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