backlog_get

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses accepted ID formats, batch fetching via array, relational expansion via context and depth parameters, and override behavior for home and project_root. The tool is clearly read-only with no destructive side effects mentioned. No contradictions.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. All subsequent sentences are compact and informative. No redundant or filler content. Efficiently packs significant usage detail into a small space.

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 no output schema, description covers input variations, parameter behaviors, and relational expansion well. It explains what the tool returns ('full details' and 'stubs') but could be slightly more specific about the stub format. Overall adequate for an agent to use 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds meaning beyond schema: explains context:true yields stubs for hydrate, depth controls expansion level (1=direct, 2=grand), home selects global vs project, and project_root overrides bridge. This adds value and justifies a score above baseline.

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?

Specifically states it retrieves full details by ID, accepts multiple ID formats (task IDs, document paths, MCP URIs), and works for any item regardless of status. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like backlog_search (which might list items) and other operations.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use context:true ('when starting work on an entity') and mentions that the tool works for any status. Implicitly suggests this is for fetching known entities, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like backlog_search or backlog_recall.

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