needfix_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that large bodies are silently replaced by a `{summarized, bytes, length, sha256}` placeholder keyed to `core.NEEDFIX_BODY_MAX_BYTES`, and that `full=true` bypasses this. It does not cover failure behavior for an unknown id or confirm read-only semantics, which keeps it off a 5.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, which is good. But the 'Measured 2026-10-09: 51 calls, avg 4 KB, max 12 KB' clause is design rationale and telemetry, not guidance an agent can act on, and it consumes roughly a third of the text.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the agent must rely entirely on prose. The description explains body folding precisely but says nothing about the rest of the returned record's fields, error behavior for a missing id, or whether the `sha256` can be used to re-fetch the full body.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for `full` (returns every byte, overriding folding). It also leaks the expected id shape via the example 'NF-2026-01447', though it never states whether prefixes, partial ids, or numeric forms are accepted.

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?

First sentence names a specific verb and resource plus the retrieval mode: 'Show one NeedFix by id.' That 'one ... by id' phrasing implicitly separates it from needfix_list, needfix_count, and needfix_events without the agent needing to open any schema.

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 `full=true` override gives partial usage guidance (fetch verbatim bytes when the folded body is not enough), but the description never states when to prefer this tool over needfix_list or needfix_events, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage remains inferred rather than stated.

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