get_exception

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It hints at a meaningful trait by saying details are 'sanitized' (i.e., redacted), but says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid fingerprints, or whether retrieval has side effects.

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?

A single short sentence fragment with zero filler, and the return content is front-loaded. It is efficient rather than padded, though the terseness edges toward under-specification.

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 single-lookup read tool with no output schema, the description does cover the returned content (details plus stack trace). However, with no annotations and an undocumented parameter, it omits error handling, sanitization scope, and usage context that an agent would need.

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 single parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only source of param meaning. It only restates that the fingerprint identifies an exception, adding no format, origin, or validity details beyond the parameter's own name.

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 states the specific resource returned: sanitized details and the application stack trace for an exception fingerprint. It is clear what the tool retrieves, though it is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement and does not distinguish itself from siblings such as get_verification or list_late_regressions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of where a fingerprint comes from or what to do if the fingerprint is unknown. Usage must be entirely inferred from the name and description.

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