dume_get_error_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that returned data is sanitized and that it only applies to active error cards, which implies expired/unknown fingerprints will not resolve. It does not say what error or response occurs when the fingerprint is unknown or inactive, nor confirm read-only behavior beyond the word 'Returns'.

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?

One compact sentence with the core resource and its scope front-loaded, and no filler. It is slightly under-packed rather than bloated, so conciseness is not the problem.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the path plus sanitization note is useful context. For a single-parameter retrieval tool with no annotations, however, it omits the failure mode for unknown/expired fingerprints and how to source a fingerprint.

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 0% and the single required 'fingerprint' parameter is an untyped string. The description narrows it to an 'active error fingerprint card', which adds some meaning, but gives no format, casing, or guidance on where to obtain a fingerprint (e.g., from dume_query or dume_get_incident_rca).

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a sanitized stack trace plus diagnostic context for an active error fingerprint card. That is well beyond tautology. It stops short of differentiating from the nearest sibling, dume_get_incident_rca, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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 phrase 'active error fingerprint card' implies the usage precondition (the error must be active), so scope is partially conveyed. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no reference to dume_get_incident_rca or how fingerprints are obtained, leaving the agent to infer routing.

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