im_get_break_details

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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses output content ('both sides, amounts, differences, and history') but lacks mention of permissions, rate limits, error cases, or whether it modifies state (implicitly read-only).

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. Every word adds value: identifies action, resource, key identifier, and output highlights.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing key output fields (amounts, differences, history). Input is sufficiently described. Could mention if it returns a single object or multiple, but overall complete for a detailed view tool.

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 the parameter description already states 'The exception/break ID'. The tool description adds no additional meaning or format details, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool gets full details of a specific break/exception by ID, distinguishing it from sibling tools like im_get_breaks (list) and im_get_aged_breaks (aging report). The verb 'Get' and resource 'break details' are specific and unambiguous.

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 use when you have an exception ID, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among the 19 sibling tools lacking differentiation criteria.

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