get_article

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves an article with 'full content' but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or has side effects. It also lacks details on response size or performance implications of including comments.

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 very concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by a clean argument list. Every part is useful and front-loaded. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the basic functionality. However, it lacks context on what 'full content' includes (e.g., does it include attachments?), how article_id can be specified, and error handling. The output schema may compensate for return values, but the tool description could be more informative for agent decision-making.

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 document parameters. It lists article_id, include_comments, and instance with brief explanations (e.g., 'Article ID or database ID'). However, it does not specify the format of article_id (e.g., numeric or string) or elaborate on how include_comments affects the response. This adds some value over the schema but is not comprehensive.

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 'Get a Knowledge Base article with full content,' specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_articles (which searches) and create_article (which creates) by indicating retrieval of a single article. However, it does not explicitly differentiate when to use this over other list/get 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as search_articles for finding articles or get_issue for issues. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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