get_chromium_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'Get details' but doesn't specify what details are returned, potential errors (e.g., for invalid IDs), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get details') and resource. There's no wasted wording, and it directly communicates the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential response formats, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, the description should provide more context to compensate, but it falls short.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'issue_id' fully documented in the schema as accepting an ID or URL. The description doesn't add any meaningful information beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't clarify format nuances, examples beyond the schema's, or edge cases. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific Chromium issue/bug'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It specifies the source ('from issues.chromium.org'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_chromium_issues', which might retrieve multiple issues rather than a single one.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_chromium_issues' for finding multiple issues or other tools for different Chromium resources. There's no indication of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases beyond the basic action.

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