Read Paperclip issue

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful conditional behavior: Markdown is returned inline only when it fits the token threshold, otherwise a new immutable snapshot path is returned. It also warns against editing snapshots to modify Paperclip, which is valuable context beyond the 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?

Four dense sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The endpoint, conditional response behavior, parameter clarification, and safety warning are each placed in their own sentence, making the definition easy to parse.

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 read-only single-issue fetch with a small parameter surface and strong schema descriptions, the description covers endpoint, response format behavior, all_fields scope, and snapshot immutability. No output schema is present, but the description provides sufficient behavioral expectations for 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%, and both id and all_fields already have rich descriptions in the schema. The description mostly restates the all_fields semantics ('only expands fields from that same response; it never changes the endpoint') rather than adding new parameter insight, so 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Fetch one issue with GET /api/issues/:id'), making the tool's purpose immediately unambiguous. The word 'one' clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools like paperclip_issues, and the title reinforces its read-only single-issue scope.

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 clearly establishes the context for use: retrieving a single issue. It also gives practical guidance on all_fields behavior and explicitly warns not to edit snapshots. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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