Get MantisBT Configuration

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds only a list of common option names, which is helpful but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as response format or error conditions. It adds minimal value beyond 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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a clear one-liner for the purpose followed by a bulleted list of common option names. Every sentence is necessary and contributes to understanding.

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 high schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is fairly complete. It provides common option names, which aids use. However, it does not mention the return format (e.g., a JSON object with key-value pairs), leaving some ambiguity for a tool with no output schema.

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 description coverage is 100%, providing a basic description of the 'options' parameter. The description adds value by listing common valid values (e.g., 'status_enum_string'), which helps the agent understand what to input, going beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Retrieve one or more MantisBT configuration options' and lists common option names, indicating a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_issue_enums', which also retrieve enums but are issue-specific.

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 usage by listing common option names, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any exclusions. It lacks context for when-not-to-use.

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