Get issue cost summary

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method and authorization class ('board_or_agent'), which provides useful authentication context. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as response format, pagination, or potential error states. The added value over annotations is modest but positive.

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 extremely concise, consisting of two short sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds essential technical details (HTTP method, path, authorization). Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff. This efficiency is ideal for an AI agent.

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 that the tool has one parameter and an output schema (not shown in input schema but context signals indicate output schema exists), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not describe the return value or explain the cost summary fields. While the output schema can fill that gap, the description could provide more high-level context about what the summary includes (e.g., total cost, per-resource breakdown). It is functional but not rich.

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?

There is only one required parameter: path.id (a string). The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The description does not mention the parameter at all; it only implies its existence via the URL path. The agent must infer that 'id' refers to the issue ID, which is reasonable from the tool name, but explicit documentation would improve clarity and reduce guesswork.

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 retrieves a cost summary for an issue, using the verb 'Get' and specifying the resource as 'issue cost summary'. It also provides the HTTP method and path, which adds clarity. However, it lacks detail on what the cost summary contains, such as currency, time period, or included cost components. Among siblings like pc_get_issues_by_id_comments or pc_get_issues_by_id_approvals, it is distinct by focusing on cost, but could be more specific to avoid ambiguity.

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 does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring an issue ID, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. Sibling tools include many issue-related retrievals, but the description offers no context to differentiate usage, forcing the agent to infer based on the name alone.

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