gibwork_get_bounty_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (get details) but does not state whether it is read-only, whether authentication is required, whether any side effects occur, or any rate limits. For a simple get operation this is minimal, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the action itself.

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 is front-loaded with the action and purpose. It includes no fluff or redundant details, making it efficient and easy to parse. It appropriately captures the tool's essence without over-specifying.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the core functionality by listing the returned content. It does not mention error conditions or output format details, but for a straightforward get operation, these are not critical. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to know what to expect.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (taskId) with a clear description. The description does not add any new meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only echoes the idea of a specific bounty ID. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the 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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (bounty details) and enumerates the content returned (full description, requirements, creator info, deadline). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools: it is for a specific bounty ID, whereas list_bounties lists multiple and verify_escrow/scaffold_workspace serve different purposes. The wording 'for a specific Gibwork bounty ID' makes the target unambiguous.

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 that this tool should be used when you have a specific bounty ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no reference to sibling tools or exclusions, leaving the routing decision to the agent's inference. While the context is clear, it lacks explicit guidance.

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