Bug report evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond these by detailing the exact components returned (logs, traces, metrics, screenshots, environment, tags) and noting it is equivalent to an engineer's manual investigation. The description does not contradict any annotation.

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 long but structured into clear sections (LOGS, TRACES, METRICS) with sub-bullets. It front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates. Every detail serves the agent's understanding of the returned data, though the length could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining the return format. It does so exhaustively, covering all three observability pillars with specific field names, plus additional attributes (screenshot_url, browser environment, tags). Given the tool's complexity, this description is complete and fit for an agent to understand what to expect.

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 the single parameter 'report_id' with a description ('Report UUID.'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, but it implicitly clarifies that this ID is used to fetch evidence for that specific report. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly identifies the resource ('full evidence package for a single bug report'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning it is faster than calling get_report_detail + report timeline separately, and it enumerates the exact data categories (LOGS, TRACES, METRICS).

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 when to use this tool: when you need the full evidence package for root-cause investigation. It explicitly mentions the alternative ('get_report_detail + report timeline separately') and highlights the benefit ('Faster'), guiding the agent to choose this tool over alternatives for comprehensive evidence retrieval.

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