swsd_get_problem

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: it is a passthrough to SWSD (returning raw output), IDs are not guessable, and detail_level controls the inclusion of comments/audits/tasks/time_tracks. This goes beyond the structured annotations, informing the agent about output nature and constraints.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: the main action, the routing guidance, and the optional detail_level tip. The critical scoping information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant wording.

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?

With a full output schema, rich param descriptions, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description completes the picture by addressing how to get the right record (list first if no ID) and how to optimize the call (detail_level). Nothing essential for an agent to call this safely and effectively is missing.

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 both parameters already have clear descriptions (id auto-detection, detail_level enum with meaning). The description slightly reinforces detail_level usage but largely repeats schema content. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden, and the description adds minimal extra semantic value.

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 'Fetch one SWSD problem (ITIL problem record) by id or number', specifying the verb, resource, and identifier type. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming swsd_list_problems as the alternative when only a name or filter is available, preventing confusion with the listing and creation 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?

Explicitly instructs to use swsd_list_problems first when lacking an ID, since 'IDs are not guessable'. Also provides guidance on optional detail_level to include more data in one call. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use direction relative to siblings.

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