analyze_problem_programmers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses what the tool returns (structured hint data with difficulty context and 3-step hint guide) and highlights a key behavioral caveat about platform ambiguity. It does not mention side effects or authorization, but for an analysis tool this is acceptable.

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 sentences: one stating the tool's purpose and components, and one providing a critical usage warning. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately communicates the main return content (structured hint data, difficulty context, 3-step guide). It also addresses the key context of platform ambiguity. Minor omissions like error handling are not critical for this simple two-parameter tool.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (problem_id as ID/URL, include_similar as boolean), giving a baseline of 3. The description adds valuable context for problem_id by warning that a bare number could be ambiguous between platforms, thereby enriching the meaning supplied by the schema.

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 states the tool analyzes Programmers problems and provides structured hint data, mentioning specific components like difficulty context and a 3-step hint guide. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as analyze_problem_boj and generate_hint_programmers by explicitly naming the platform (Programmers) and the unique output format.

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 includes an explicit warning about platform determination: if only a problem number is provided, the agent must infer the platform from context or ask the user before invoking the tool. This effectively guides when to use this tool versus BOJ-specific siblings, even though no sibling is explicitly named.

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