get_writeup

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. 'Read' implies a non-destructive retrieval, and the content note adds some specificity. However, it does not disclose what happens when no writeup exists, whether the full writeup is returned, or any access/error behavior; no output schema fills that gap.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loads the operation and resource, and uses the parenthetical for extra content context. It is economical and well-structured.

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 one-parameter read tool, the core call is clear, but with no output schema and no stated behavior for missing writeups, an agent cannot fully predict the response. The 'Thai human + English AI' note is the only extra context and is itself somewhat ambiguous.

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 exposes one required challenge_id with format and pattern, but gives no semantic description. The tool description only implies via 'a challenge's' that challenge_id identifies the challenge. Because there is exactly one self-explanatory parameter, the cost is low, but the meaning is still left implicit.

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 a specific verb ('Read') and a clear resource ('a challenge's writeup'), making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling save_writeup by read/write orientation. The parenthetical content note adds detail without obscuring the purpose.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need an existing challenge writeup. The 'Read' wording naturally contrasts with the sibling save_writeup, so the appropriate selection is straightforward. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the pair is obvious.

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