paperclip_get_issue_cost

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns a cost summary with tokens used and total cost, but does not state whether it is read-only, if it has side effects, or if any permissions are required. This is minimal behavioral disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and key details, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose. It could mention that it is a read operation or clarify the response format, but given the simplicity, it is reasonably complete. The lack of usage guidance slightly detracts, but the core purpose is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the only parameter (issueId). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'ID of the issue'. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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', the resource 'cost summary for a specific issue', and specifies the content ('tokens used, total cost'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like paperclip_get_issue (which likely returns issue details) and paperclip_list_issues (which lists issues).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be used for cost-related queries or that paperclip_get_issue should be used for general issue details. The name implies cost, but no explicit routing or exclusions are provided.

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