backlog_get

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes that the tool works 'for any item regardless of status,' hinting at ability to fetch deleted or archived items. However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (though inferred from 'get').

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds important detail about formats and status.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, ID formats, and status scope. It could mention the return type ('full details' is sufficient) but lacks nothing critical.

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%, but the description adds value by clarifying supported ID formats (task IDs and MCP URIs) and mentions batch fetch for arrays, which is not explicit in the schema's description.

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 the tool retrieves full details by ID, specifying accepted ID formats (task IDs and MCP resource URIs). While it distinguishes from siblings implicitly through its 'get' verb, it does not explicitly contrast with other retrieval tools like backlog_list or backlog_search.

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 that this tool is for fetching items by their ID, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or specific contexts are mentioned.

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