glpi_get_problem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning a complete context including timeline, which implies convenience but does not disclose side effects (though likely read-only), the size of the response, or any error conditions. It does not state whether it is read-only, which is pertinent since many sibling tools are reads.

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 single, concise sentence that conveys the primary function and the key benefit (no multiple calls). It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While it could be slightly more specific, it has no wasted words.

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 tool that aggregates multiple calls into one, the description is under-specified. It does not indicate what the timeline includes, what other context is covered, whether it includes follow-ups or comments, or the output structure. Given no output schema, this leaves the agent with inadequate expectations.

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% and there is only one parameter, 'id', which is documented as 'ID do problem'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, but the schema already is sufficient, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'Retorna' (returns) and the resource 'UM problem' (a problem), and adds that it includes 'timeline' context, though the description does not extensively distinguish from sibling tools beyond the emphasis on timeline and complete context.

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 does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like glpi_get_problem_timeline or glpi_get_problem_stats. It only implies that the tool aggregates multiple calls, but no explicit guidance on choosing it over siblings.

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