get_problem_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'fetch' which implies a read operation, but doesn't mention whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps unaddressed.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address the tool's purpose and parameter meaning. There's no wasted text or redundancy. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded by integrating the parameter explanation more seamlessly rather than as a separate sentence fragment.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only one parameter with good semantic coverage in the description, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a tool that fetches detailed information, additional context about what constitutes 'detailed information' (e.g., problem statement, constraints, sample cases) would be helpful despite the output schema.

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 description provides specific semantic context for the single parameter 'problem_id', explaining it's 'the external ID/display ID of the problem' and giving an example format ('PR-114-1-31'). Since schema description coverage is 0% (the schema only has a title 'Problem Id'), this adds meaningful value beyond what the structured schema provides. With only one parameter, the description adequately covers its purpose.

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 'fetch' and the resource 'detailed information of a specific problem', which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_problems' (which likely lists multiple problems) or 'get_submission_status' (which focuses on submissions rather than problem details).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'get_problem_details' over 'list_problems' for problem information, or how it relates to submission-related tools like 'get_submission_status' or 'list_my_submissions'. There's no context about prerequisites or typical workflows.

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