Get a bug report

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: screenshots are returned as image content, notes use @i1/@d1/@label references, resolved_references maps those tokens, and an {"error": ...} object is returned when the id is missing. It also states the tool is 'Read-only and local,' confirming the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and return contents, followed by the workflow hint and the token-mapping detail. Every sentence contributes useful information, and there is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the returned report fields, embedded image behavior, token-to-media mapping, and the error shape for a missing id. For a one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false annotations, this is complete enough to call correctly.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for the single id parameter, including its numeric type and example. The description adds only the missing-id error behavior, not additional syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter fully.

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 and resource: 'Read one bug report in full,' then enumerates exactly what is returned, including title, body, notes, status, tags, linked GitHub issue, attached media, and embedded screenshots. It also distinguishes the tool's role from list_reports by positioning this as the follow-up read after listing.

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?

It gives clear usage guidance: 'Use this after list_reports to understand a bug before fixing it.' This establishes the intended workflow and timing. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools such as request_screenshot, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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