Read Mod Bug Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond those hints by specifying that the operation returns both the bug report and its replies, which is meaningful behavioral scope. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

One efficient sentence with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the parameter provenance is appended naturally. Every word 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 one-parameter, read-only tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it identifies the input source, the operation, and the expected content (report plus replies). No output schema exists, but the description's statement of what is read effectively communicates return scope.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It names the single parameter (issue_id) and, more importantly, tells the agent where to obtain it (from get_mod_bugs), which is the key semantic context needed to call this tool correctly. It doesn't over-explain the simple integer type.

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 ('Read') and resource ('one bug report and its replies'), clearly distinguishing this single-issue read from sibling tools like get_mod_bugs (list) and reply_mod_bug/delete_mod_bug (mutations). The parenthetical 'issue_id from get_mod_bugs' further anchors the exact resource.

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 gives concrete usage context: it tells the agent that the issue_id parameter comes from get_mod_bugs, implying a list-then-fetch workflow. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but for a simple read tool with one parameter, this is sufficient guidance.

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