swsd_get_problem

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable context: 'Returns the full problem detail as returned by SWSD (passthrough).' It also explains the auto-detection of ID type via digit count (from schema). No contradictions; description enhances transparency beyond annotations.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: defining the tool, providing usage context, and detailing a parameter. It is front-loaded with the primary action and immediately useful information, with no wasted words.

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 complexity of two parameters with auto-detection and two detail levels, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use alternatives, how parameters work, and what output to expect (passthrough). An output schema exists, but the description still clarifies the nature of the return data.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: for 'id', it explains the dual format (internal id vs. number) and auto-detection. For 'detail_level', it clarifies the trade-off between 'short' (faster/cheaper) and 'long' (more data). This goes beyond the schema's default and enum.

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 explicitly states 'Fetch one SWSD problem (ITIL problem record) by id or number.' It clearly identifies the verb (fetch) and resource (problem record). Additionally, it differentiates from the sibling tool swsd_list_problems by advising to use that for name-based searches, ensuring no ambiguity.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use swsd_list_problems first if you only have a name or filter — IDs are not guessable.' It also instructs on when to use the detail_level parameter: 'Pass detail_level: "long" to include comments, audits, tasks, and time_tracks in one call.' This explicitly addresses alternatives and context.

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