get_defect

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is read-only and specifies the return fields. It does not mention error conditions, authentication needs, or potential side effects, but the described behavior is accurate and sufficient for a simple get operation.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with purpose and includes essential return information. No extraneous content—every word earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing key return fields. It is sufficient for an agent to understand what to expect. It could mention that the defect must exist, but overall it is complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

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%, and the schema already documents the id parameter well (type, format). The description adds no new information about the parameter beyond restating that it is used to fetch a defect. Baseline 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 tool retrieves a single defect by ID and lists the specific fields returned (name, status, description, matcher configuration). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_defects (which returns multiple) and update_defect (which modifies).

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 context is clear: use when you have a specific defect ID and need details. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_defects for querying multiple defects. The guidance is implied but adequate.

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