intigriti_get_submission

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and it states what information is returned. However, it does not explicitly state that it is non-mutating, mention authentication requirements, or describe error behavior for invalid IDs, though these are arguably implied by the verb.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose and includes relevant return fields. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the returned data (description, severity, status, communication). It could be slightly more comprehensive by mentioning error cases or ownership constraints, but for a straightforward read tool it is sufficiently complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter `submission_id` with a clear description ('The unique identifier of the submission (UUID)'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific bug submission'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like intigriti_list_submissions. It also lists key return fields (description, severity, status, communication), making the purpose 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 this tool is for retrieving details about one specific submission, as opposed to listing submissions. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'use intigriti_list_submissions to find submission IDs') or provide when-not-to-use guidance, leaving usage context implied rather than explicit.

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