get_problem_boj

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the platform ambiguity warning and the kind of data returned (difficulty, tags, stats), but it does not mention potential error cases, response format, or any side effects. For a simple getter, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 with the core action in the first sentence and a critical platform warning in the second. Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded.

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 getter with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the key data returned (difficulty, tags, statistics), and a real usage caveat (platform ambiguity). It does not document edge cases or full return structure, but that is not critical for a tool of this simplicity.

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% and the schema already clearly describes problem_id as 'BOJ 문제 번호 (양의 정수)'. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the platform-confirmation note relates to usage context rather than the parameter definition itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'retrieves detailed information about a specific BOJ problem' and lists the details (difficulty, tags, statistics). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly targeting BOJ and by the platform-confirmation note, which differentiates it from get_problem_programmers.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus other platform-specific tools: if only a problem number is provided, determine the platform from context or ask the user for confirmation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this one, but it provides clear contextual guidance.

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