knowledge_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals meaningful behavior: direct children are returned but only as title+summary, recursion is explicitly excluded, and branch nodes usually have empty own-content with substance in children. This goes well beyond the input schema, though it does not cover failure modes or response formatting details.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place. The core operation is front-loaded, and the important non-recursive and branch-behavior caveats are packed efficiently into the first sentence. The usage note is a single clear directive.

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?

The description supplies enough for an agent to select and invoke safely: it explains what is returned, that traversal is one level, and that browse/search should precede this call. Since there is no output schema, the description at least narrates the return content, though it does not describe exact JSON shape or error behavior.

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 schema fully documents parameters. The description's 'by ID or path' restates the node_id schema description rather than adding new semantics. The actor/model/session params are unchanged and add no additional parameter insight.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read full content of a knowledge node', then clearly defines the exact scope: full content plus title+summary of direct children, one level, not recursive. It also distinguishes itself from browse/search by noting that this tool reads a known node rather than discovering one.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use browse/search first to find the right node,' which tells the agent to use discovery tools before invoking this one. It implies read is for after node discovery, but it does not explicitly spell out when to choose this tool over knowledge_update, knowledge_browse, or knowledge_search beyond that context.

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