codebreaker_get_problem

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

Despite the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: two possible statement shapes, best-effort samples, pypdf extraction, a locally cached PDF path, no image extraction, and optional subtasks/editorials. This goes well beyond the annotation and helps the agent predict the tool's variations.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-sentence purpose, followed by a well-organized paragraph covering variations, edge cases, and alternatives. Every sentence provides useful information, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: statement_markdown vs statement_text, PDF path and URL, no images, subtasks, editorials, and the has_attachment flag. It is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool confidently.

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 schema description and the tool description does not explicitly explain where to obtain it or how it is formatted. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory given the tool's purpose, and no other parameters exist. The description offers some context about what the problem_id refers to but doesn't fully compensate for the 0% schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Read a problem statement plus constraints,' which gives a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like codebreaker_list_problems and codebreaker_get_attachment by focusing on the problem statement content.

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 explicit contextual guidance: it states that attachment zips should be fetched using codebreaker_get_attachment, and that PDF-only problem statements can be handed to a mineru MCP for deeper parsing. It also notes that no images are extracted, setting expectations about what this tool does not do.

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