pddl_get_problem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool returns and its usefulness. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what format the problem string is in, error conditions (e.g., if session not initialized), or any side effects. For a retrieval tool, these are significant gaps.

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 concise two-sentence structure. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose ('Get the PDDL problem string...'), and the second sentence adds utility without waste. Every word 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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description should still cover prerequisites (e.g., session must be initialized), format of the return value, and whether it's read-only. The description only mentions the problem string and its usefulness, leaving significant gaps in understanding for an agent. It is incomplete for a planning-related tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter space fully.

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 tool returns the PDDL problem string used to initialize the session, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('PDDL problem string'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like pddl_get_domain (which gets the domain) and pddl_get_current_state (which gets the current state) by highlighting that it re-reads objects, initial state, and goal conditions.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful for re-reading objects, initial state, and goal conditions.' This gives contextual guidance on when to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the context of sibling tools makes the intended usage reasonably clear.

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