feedbug_get_diagnostics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It lists the output fields, which gives some behavioral insight, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. The description is minimal but adequate for a simple read.

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, compact sentence (15 words) that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. No redundant or unnecessary words.

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?

The tool has one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description lists the output fields but does not describe the return format or structure (e.g., JSON object). For a simple tool this is adequate, but it could be more complete by specifying the output structure or any constraints.

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% (the single 'id' parameter is well described in the schema). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply repeats the idea of 'for a bug'. 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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'browser diagnostics for a bug', and lists specific output fields (page URL, viewport size, user agent, reporter name). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like feedbug_get_bug (which likely returns full bug details) and feedbug_get_html_context (HTML context).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The description does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference sibling tools like feedbug_get_bug, feedbug_get_html_context, or feedbug_get_replay for different diagnostic needs.

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