knowbe4_account_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It describes read operations (subscription, seats, admin, risk score), which clearly implies a read-only inquiry. However, it doesn't disclose whether admin details require special authentication, what the response format looks like, or any rate-limit considerations. The read nature is evident, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 that efficiently lists the key data points returned. It's front-loaded with the action and resource, then enumerates the specific content. No wasted words, though it could arguably be slightly more structured by separating the account summary from the risk score component.

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 zero-parameter account overview tool, the description adequately covers the scope of returned data. With no output schema and no annotations, the description enumerates the main data categories (subscription, seats, admin, risk score), which is the primary gap-filling needed. However, it doesn't clarify whether the 'current risk score' overlaps with or differs from the dedicated knowbe4_account_risk_score_history sibling, leaving slight ambiguity.

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?

There are 0 parameters, which per the rubric gives a baseline of 4. With no input schema to document, the description's listing of return content (subscription level, seats, admin details, risk score) effectively serves as the semantic documentation. Nothing more is needed since there are no inputs to explain.

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') and resource ('KnowBe4 account information'), and lists specific content types: subscription level, number of seats, admin details, and current risk score. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on specific sub-areas like phishing campaigns, training, or users. It's a clear account-level overview tool, differentiated from the more specific data-access siblings.

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 implies this is the account-level overview tool versus the more specific sibling tools (users, campaigns, groups), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like knowbe4_account_risk_score_history or knowbe4_reporting_risk_overview. There's no explicit guidance on when this is the right choice versus when to use a more specific sibling.

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