Get a problem and its history

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns sparks with idea, next step, and outcome, but omits whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication needs, or side effects. The 'long-running memory' metaphor adds context but insufficient detail.

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 that effectively communicates the main action and value. It is front-loaded with 'Show one problem plus every spark', though the sentence is somewhat lengthy with parenthetical explanations.

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 simple schema (one integer parameter, no output schema) and the context of sibling tools, the description provides adequate information about the return value (problem + sparks). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.

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% with one required parameter 'id' described as 'Problem id'. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline of 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 'Show one problem plus every spark... captured against it', specifying the verb 'Show' and the resource 'problem' with its history. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_problems (which likely lists without details) and capture_spark (which adds) by focusing on a single problem with full spark history.

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 this tool is for viewing a problem's accumulated sparks across sessions, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like list_problems or evoke. No guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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