Error detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only, 0 credits,' adding cost information. More importantly, it discloses that occurrences are 'redacted' and inputs are only a 'shape-only echo,' setting accurate expectations about the response — behavioral traits not present in the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose before enumerating the returned content. The closing 'This is what makes a bug reproducible' adds value framing without fluff. Compact and well-ordered, with only minor density in the field enumeration.

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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives ample context: how to obtain the key, what content to expect, redaction behavior, and cost. One could wish for explicit output structure given the absence of an output schema, but the field listing partially covers this. Quite complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with the single 'fingerprint' parameter documented as 'the fp value from list_errors.' The description repeats this source relationship ('by fingerprint (from list_errors)') but adds no new syntactic or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (retrieve) and resource (one error group) keyed by fingerprint, explicitly naming its sourcing tool list_errors. It distinguishes itself from list_errors by describing the expanded content — full fields plus redacted occurrences — so an agent understands this is the detail complement to the listing tool.

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 makes the prerequisite explicit: the fingerprint comes from list_errors, implying the workflow of listing first and then drilling into a specific group. It does not name exclusions or explicitly state when not to use it, but the source relationship and the 'makes a bug reproducible' framing give clear usage context.

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