dynatrace_managed_get_problem_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction exists. The description adds useful context about the content returned (evidence details, affected entities, tags, management zones), but it does not discuss rate limits, authentication, pagination, or error behavior. Given the read-only annotation covers the safety profile, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 two short sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical identifier caveat appears immediately after. There is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 read-only detail tool with two required parameters and no nested objects, the description provides the essential context: what data will be returned and which identifier to supply. The schema covers parameter semantics, and the readOnlyHint covers safety, so no critical information is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description repeats the key caveat about using UUID problemId rather than displayId, which is helpful reinforcement, but it adds little beyond what the schema already states. A score of 3 reflects that the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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: 'Get detailed information about a specific problem.' It also lists the kinds of details returned (evidence, affected entities, tags, management zones) and explicitly distinguishes the identifier to use (UUID problemId from list_problems), which helps separate it from sibling detail and list tools.

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 a clear contextual instruction: use the problemId from list_problems output, NOT the displayId. This effectively tells the agent where the required input comes from. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the purpose and input source are unambiguous.

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