get_problem

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

No annotations are provided. The description indicates a read-only operation ('Get') and hints at the response structure ('root cause and affected entities'), but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as authorization requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Since the tool is a simple getter, the basic transparency is adequate but not enhanced beyond the name.

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 a single sentence of 10 words, directly starting with the action and resource. It is concise, front-loaded with key information, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers its purpose and key return details (root cause and affected entities). It provides enough context for an agent to expect a comprehensive response, though it could explicitly state the return type (e.g., 'returns a problem object').

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 for parameters is 100% (one parameter 'problemId' described as 'The problem id.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. According to the guideline, when schema_coverage is high, the baseline is 3; no extra value is added from the description.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'full details of one problem', explicitly mentioning 'root cause and affected entities'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_problems' (which lists problems without full details) and other 'get_*' tools by specifying the unique content returned.

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 for retrieving comprehensive details of a specific problem when the problem ID is known. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives like 'list_problems' for finding IDs, but the context is clear and straightforward for a simple single-record retrieval.

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