knowbe4_training_enrollments_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It states this is a 'get' (read) operation implicitly, but doesn't explicitly confirm it's read-only, doesn't mention authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., 404 for invalid ID), or rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, more disclosure is expected.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and purpose, zero wasted words. The description is appropriately compact for a simple single-parameter get tool.

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 is simple (1 param, no nested objects), the description covers the basic purpose. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description could usefully note that no output schema exists and clarify what fields the response includes beyond module progress and completion date. It's adequate for the simplicity level but not rich.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the description adds value by stating the parameter (enrollment ID) corresponds to a 'specific training enrollment' and clarifying what the retrieved data addresses. With schema fully covering the parameter, baseline is 3, and the description's context about what the ID refers to elevates it slightly.

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 a specific verb ('Get detailed information') with an explicit resource ('a specific training enrollment by ID'), and specifies what the returned data includes ('module progress and completion date'). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'list' tool, though it doesn't emphasize the contrast explicitly.

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 for retrieving a single enrollment by ID, contrasting with the sibling 'list' tool for retrieving all enrollments. However, there's no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid enrollment ID obtained from the list call first).

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