get_bug

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 states 'Get a bug by ID', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't cover aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens if the bug ID doesn't exist), authentication needs, rate limits, or return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence 'Get a bug by ID.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 2 parameters and sibling tools. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and usage context. For a read operation in a bug-tracking system, more information on error cases or output structure would be beneficial to ensure correct invocation.

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 input schema fully documents both parameters (bug_id and project_path). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Get a bug by ID' clearly states the action (get) and resource (bug), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'list_bugs' or 'search_bugs_global'. It specifies retrieval by ID, which is somewhat specific but lacks detail about what constitutes a 'bug' in this context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_bugs' or 'search_bugs_global'. The description implies usage for retrieving a specific bug by ID, but it doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual factors like needing a project directory.

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