GetRuntimeError

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the response contains (error analysis, call stack, variables, source code extract), which is useful for a read tool, but says nothing about permissions, encoding requirements beyond the schema note, or behavior of the content modes.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second enumerates the return payload. It is well front-loaded with nothing extraneous.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return-content summary that would otherwise be missing, and the schema covers parameters. Only the missing usage routing and permission context keep it from being fully 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both dump_id and the content enum are already fully documented in the schema, including the URL-encoding caveat. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating that formatted output is the default behavior.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve detailed information about a specific runtime error dump') and pins the domain with the ST22 transaction code. The word 'specific' implicitly contrasts with ListRuntimeErrors, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls just short of the top band.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. It does not say the dump_id must first come from ListRuntimeErrors, nor when a caller would choose this over the list tool or vice versa. That linkage exists only in the dump_id schema description, not in the tool description.

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