get_defect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is fully documented. The description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., error handling, caching, or relationship to other resources).

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?

A single sentence with no redundancy. It immediately states the purpose and key parameters. Every word contributes to clarity.

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 description is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool with good annotations. However, it lacks information about return format or error conditions (e.g., what happens if defect not found), which would be helpful for an agent. Given no output schema, some return context would improve completeness.

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% and the description mirrors the schema properties ('project code' and 'defect ID') without adding additional meaning such as formatting constraints or typical values. The description is adequate but does not enhance the schema.

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 action (get) and resource (a specific defect) along with the required identifiers (project code and defect ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_defects (which lists multiple) and create_defect (which creates).

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 implies use when you need a single defect by known IDs, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like list_defects or search. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, but the context is clear enough.

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