get_solution

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation ('get') and reveals that IDs and aliases are supported, but it does not mention potential errors, permissions, or the structure of the full playbook entry. This is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool but lacks depth.

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 and front-loaded with the action ('Get a full playbook entry'), followed by useful examples. Both sentences earn their place with no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to understand what the tool does and how to invoke it. It could be more explicit about the return structure or error handling, but for this scope, it is reasonably complete.

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 covers the id parameter at 100%, and the description adds valuable semantic details by providing concrete example values (too-many-parts, ingestion-batching) and explaining that aliases like write-amplification are accepted. This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Solution id or alias' description.

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 retrieves a full playbook entry by id, with specific examples (too-many-parts, ingestion-batching). It distinguishes the tool from siblings (search_solutions, diagnose_symptoms, health_check) by focusing on retrieval by unique identifier.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: when you have an id or alias. The mention of 'from search_solutions or playbook index' in the schema complements the description, but the description itself does not explicitly contrast with search_solutions for discovery use cases. However, the examples and 'by id' phrasing give clear contextual usage.

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