Get Knowledge Entry

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the response_format options, the exact JSON return shape, and concrete examples, which go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-organized into purpose, arguments, return format, and examples, and the key purpose is front-loaded. There is slight redundancy between the first two sentences, but overall every remaining 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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the ID requirement, the response_format behavior, the JSON return structure, and usage examples. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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 already documents both parameters. The description adds only mild value by giving an example ID format ('kb-001') and a concise usage example, but it largely restates what the schema already provides.

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 ('Get'), resource ('single knowledge entry by ID from TiDB RAG knowledge base'), and emphasizes retrieval of 'full content'. It is clearly distinct from siblings like list, search, and vector search, which do not fetch by exact ID.

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 the tool is for cases where the caller already knows the knowledge entry ID, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings (list/search/vector) or state when to use an alternative. The usage context is clear but not enforced with exclusions.

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