Retrieve the full markdown content of a specific LuneOS knowledge topic, such as kernel-porting or debugging. Call luneos_list_topics to see valid topic names.
Return the full markdown content of one LuneOS knowledge topic (e.g. 'kernel-porting', 'debugging', 'device-bluejay'). Use luneos_list_topics to see valid names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Topic name (filename without .md) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format ('full markdown content'), which is genuinely useful, and the name implies a read-only operation. It says nothing about behavior on an invalid topic name, missing topics, or content size/latency.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the prerequisite tool named second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key missing piece — what comes back (markdown content). An agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.
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%, so the 'topic' parameter is already documented as a filename without .md. The description reinforces this with example values, but adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Return the full markdown content of one LuneOS knowledge topic') plus the exact grain (one topic), which distinguishes it from list_topics and search. Concrete example topic names make the resource tangible.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to luneos_list_topics for valid names, giving clear context for the required argument. It does not, however, distinguish when to retrieve a full topic versus using luneos_search, so the sibling comparison is only half-covered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.