get_custom_problem

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the scope 'playground.read', indicating a read operation. However, it does not disclose what happens if the problem_id does not exist, if the problem is not owned by the calling account, or any error states. For a simple get tool, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 two short sentences. Every word is necessary: the verb, resource, ownership, and scope. No extraneous content.

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), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does and the scope. However, it lacks details on the return format and does not compensate for the missing parameter description. With no annotations, more behavioral context could be added.

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 only parameter 'problem_id' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description does not explain it either, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool name. Since the description adds no value beyond the schema, and schema coverage is low, the score is low.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'one custom Lean problem owned by the calling account'. It also includes the scope 'playground.read', indicating a read operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_custom_problems' (for multiple) or 'create_custom_problem'.

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 the tool is for retrieving a single problem, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., use when you have a specific problem_id, or that list_custom_problems is for finding IDs). No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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