feedbug_get_bug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only declares what information is returned, but fails to mention side effects (e.g., read-only nature), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior (e.g., what happens when the bug ID does not exist). The name implies a read operation, but the description does not confirm this.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action and key return fields without any wasted words. Every piece of information serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and main return fields. However, it omits details about the return format (e.g., JSON structure) and error handling (e.g., invalid ID). Given the tool's low complexity, this is a minor gap.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the single parameter 'id' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., formatting constraints, allowed values). Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is complete.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a specific bug', then lists key return fields (HTML context, screenshot URL, viewport, user agent). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'feedbug_list_bugs' (which lists many) or 'feedbug_get_html_context' (which gets only part).

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 states what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. Sibling tool names (e.g., feedbug_get_diagnotics, feedbug_get_replay) imply different specializations, but without explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statements, an agent must infer usage context.

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