get_problem_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Retrieve', giving no information about read-only guarantees, error handling when the ID is not found, permission requirements, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation metadata.

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 extremely concise, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and only a minimal Args block. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema provided), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and does not mention known alternatives like get_problems. The output schema covers return values, but the description does not set expectations for edge cases or relationship to related tools.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only repeats the parameter name ('problem_id') and says 'The problem ID', adding little meaning beyond the schema's integer type and title. No details on where to find the ID or any format constraints are provided.

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 'Retrieve a single problem by ID' with a specific verb (retrieve), resource (problem), and scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_problems (which lists problems) and other get_*_by_id tools.

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 implies usage when a problem ID is known, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_problems, nor any stated exclusions. It leaves the comparison to the reader.

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