get_bug_detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover other aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'detailed info' includes (e.g., fields, format). This is a significant gap 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 concise with a single sentence and no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the Korean translation adds minor redundancy. It could be slightly improved by integrating the translation more seamlessly, but overall it's efficient.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed info' returns (e.g., bug fields, status, history), which is critical for a tool focused on retrieval. For a read operation with no structured output documentation, this leaves the agent guessing about the response format.

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% description coverage, with the single parameter 'thread_ts' documented as '버그 메시지의 thread_ts' (bug message's thread_ts). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 tool's purpose as 'Get detailed info on a specific bug thread' with a Korean translation. It specifies the verb 'get' and resource 'bug thread', making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scan_qa_bugs' or 'list_items', which might also retrieve bug information in different ways.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a thread_ts from another source, or compare it to siblings like 'scan_qa_bugs' for broader searches or 'list_items' for summaries. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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