get_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'read' clearly implies a non-destructive, read-only operation, and the description adds useful workflow context. However, it does not mention potential error cases (e.g., missing slug), rate limits, or what exactly 'full content' includes beyond what a user might expect. Still, for a simple fetch-by-slug tool, the core behavioral trait is clear.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a precise usage guideline. Every word earns its place; no fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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 (single slug parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and usage flow. It lacks explicit note about return format or errors, but for a straightforward read operation, the essential information is present. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema already has excellent parameter descriptions with examples, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that the slug is obtained from search_wiki, which clarifies the parameter's origin and usage. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' with a clear resource: 'the full content of a specific wiki article by its slug.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_wiki by positioning it as a follow-up step, and from list_articles by emphasizing 'full content.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 gives an explicit workflow: 'Use search_wiki first to find relevant slugs, then get_article to read the full content.' This states when to use it and implicitly when not to use it (not for searching/finding articles). It names the primary alternative tool directly.

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