get_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'full content' detail and parameter defaults (include_comments default True), but does not disclose any additional behaviors like response size limits, permission requirements, or error conditions. 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by an Args list. Every sentence is informative with no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 read-only tool with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers parameters and purpose, but misses usage context compared to sibling tools (e.g., when to search vs. get) and any edge cases or performance notes. Given the low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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 carries the full burden. It explicitly explains each parameter: article_id as 'Article ID or database ID', include_comments as 'Include comments' with default, and instance as 'YouTrack instance (optional)'. This gives meaningful semantics beyond the schema's bare types and defaults.

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 'Get a Knowledge Base article with full content', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_articles by implying direct retrieval of a single article, and from create/update/delete article tools by being read-only.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_articles or list_saved_searches. It does not mention exclusions or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer from the name and context.

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