fetch_problem_plain_text

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, rate limits, or error conditions. Only a basic fetch action is implied.

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 concise (13 words) and uses a single sentence. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it could be more informative.

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 one parameter and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it omits details about input format, error handling, and what 'plain text' means relative to the problem, which could affect agent understanding.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, leaving 'link' undefined. The description partially compensates by stating 'given its URL', but does not specify format (e.g., full URL vs slug) or required prefix.

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 'Fetches' and the resource 'plain text content of a LeetCode problem', and specifies the input as a URL. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'get_problem', which likely also fetches problem data.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'get_problem' or 'search_problems'. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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