Get one bug of a ground

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals acceptance of two ref formats (seq and internal id), that status is ignored, the response includes impact details, that numbers are per-ground and never reused, and that a deleted bug leaves a gap. It also states the error behavior for no match.

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 longer than many but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows logically through ref formats, comparison with list_bugs, response content, and edge cases. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 explicitly lists what the response contains (full description, metadata, impact with reachedCount, reached nodes, other active bugs) and covers error behavior. It also addresses the per-ground numbering nuance and the behavior for deleted bugs, making it self-sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's results and edge cases.

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 already has 100% coverage for the two parameters, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that 'ref' can be a human-facing seq like '14' or '#14' or an internal 'bug-<uuid>', explains that numbers are per-ground and never reused, and describes what the response includes (full description, metadata, impact). This goes well beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.

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: 'Returns a single bug by reference,' and immediately frames it as the 'cheap path' compared to list_bugs. It also explicitly contrasts with list_bugs, making the tool's unique role unmistakable.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool vs list_bugs: 'Use list_bugs only to scan for bugs you cannot yet name.' It also explains the advantage of this tool (ignores status, accepts human-facing references) and clarifies the context for reviewing past fixes.

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