Bug report evidence

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing the evidence contents and positioning it as root-cause investigation data. No contradiction; the description enhances understanding of the tool's output without conflicting with annotations.

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?

Two sentences succinctly enumerate the evidence components, establish context, and highlight the efficiency advantage over alternative tools. Every sentence contributes meaningfully with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully specifies the return content (screenshot, logs, environment, replay, breadcrumbs, comments). It also provides use-case context (root-cause investigation) and performance comparison to related siblings, making the tool usage clear.

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 has 100% coverage for the single required parameter (report_id) with a standard description. The tool description does not add additional semantics for the parameter itself beyond the schema, so 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 tool returns the full evidence package for a single bug report, listing its components. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it's faster than combining get_report_detail and report timeline.

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 explicitly advises that this tool is faster than calling get_report_detail and report timeline separately, providing implicit guidance on when to use it. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use scenarios but suggests the tool as a comprehensive alternative.

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