get_feedback_detail

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the payload contents (annotations, widget hierarchy, notes, AI prompt, screenshot), which is meaningful behavioral context. It stops short of stating that this is a read-only, side-effect-free operation, how errors are surfaced for unknown IDs, or that responses can be large when a screenshot is included.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the returned fields after; every listed item is informative rather than padding. No redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately compensates by naming the returned data, so an agent knows what it will get. Missing only error/invalid-ID behavior and an explicit read-only assurance for a two-parameter retrieval tool.

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 both feedback_id (UUID) and include_screenshot (default true, included in response) are already fully documented. The description only reinforces that lookup is by ID and that the screenshot is part of the payload, adding little beyond 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?

Specific verb ("Fetch") plus resource ("full details of a specific feedback item") and an enumeration of what comes back (pin annotations, widget hierarchy, notes, AI fix prompt, screenshot). This clearly separates it from list_feedbacks and get_latest_feedback by signaling an ID-addressed single-item lookup, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "by its ID" suggests it is called after obtaining an ID from list_feedbacks or get_latest_feedback. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_latest_feedback, nor any note about what happens with an invalid or stale ID.

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