get_patch_details

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. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Retrieve') and adds value by naming the return contents (metadata, transition history, evidence sources). While it doesn't discuss errors or side effects, for a getter this is sufficient.

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 compact and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds useful information, and the key purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema available, the description covers the purpose, the parameter, and the general shape of the return value. It doesn't mention error handling or prerequisites, but these are less critical given the simplicity of the tool and the presence of an output schema.

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 only provides the parameter type and title. The description's Args section adds 'Patchwork message/patch ID', which clarifies the domain of the identifier, but it doesn't include examples or format details. Given the 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' with resource 'patch' and clarifies the scope: full metadata and state transition history. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_commit_details or search_patches, which target different entities.

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 implies that the tool should be used when you have a patch_id (as indicated by the required argument), but it doesn't provide explicit context for when to choose this over alternatives like search_patches or analyze_patch_series. There are no exclusions or comparisons to other tools.

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