qa_get_round_detail

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does reveal the important fallback behavior and the exact-match semantics, which are useful. However, it does not explain what 'bounded' means, what the return shape is, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens when neither parameter is provided.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the primary exact-lookup behavior and then adds the fallback behavior efficiently.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It omits crucial operational detail such as how limit bounds the fallback, whether limit is required in fallback mode, and what the tool returns when no matching attempt exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions client_attempt_id and hints at bound via 'bounded attempt', but it never clearly states that limit controls the fallback result or how the two parameters interact when both are provided or omitted.

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 identifies a specific operation: finding a server attempt by client_attempt_id, with a fallback to the most recent bounded attempt. It names the key resource and identifier, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like qa_get_attempts or qa_get_current_round.

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 two modes of use are implied: exact lookup when client_attempt_id is supplied, and a fallback to the most recent attempt otherwise. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as qa_get_attempts, nor does it mention exclusions.

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