get_bounty_detail

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states what is fetched but does not disclose any behavioral traits (e.g., read-only, idempotent, no side effects, authentication requirements). For a simple retrieval, minimal transparency is acceptable but not fully disclosed.

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?

Description is a single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. It is concise, though could potentially include a brief note on return format or additional fields. No waste.

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 simple nature (single param, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose and output fields. It is fairly complete but could mention it is a read-only operation to align with behavioral transparency.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter with description). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and resource 'full details of a single bounty', listing specific fields (description, criteria, repo URL, reward). It is distinct from sibling tools which either list, submit, or modify bounties.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, it does not mention when to choose this over get_bounty_submissions or list_open_bounties. Implicit from name but no direct guidance.

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