Get Davis Problem

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden but delivers almost nothing: no statement about what is returned, error behavior for an unknown ID, or any permission/rate-limit context. Only the accepted identifier format is disclosed, which is minimal for a 9-parameter read tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, and identifier syntax; zero filler and no redundancy. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits return-shape expectations, error conditions, and how the optional time-window/connection parameters interact. It is minimally adequate for a fetch-by-id call but leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is high (89%), which sets a baseline of 3, and the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining that problemId accepts either a display id (P-123) or an event id — the schema itself gives problemId no description at all. The optional time-window and connection parameters remain documented only in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Davis problem) and clarifies the accepted identifier forms (display id P-123 or event id). However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like dynatrace_query_problems or dynatrace_triage_problem, leaving the agent to infer which tool to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With siblings such as dynatrace_query_problems (lookup/search) and dynatrace_triage_problem in the same namespace, the definition gives the agent nothing to route between single-fetch and query/triage flows.

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