Get bug details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context beyond that by stating the tool does not include comments and listing the exact fields returned, giving the agent a clearer expectation of the read outcome.

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 two sentences with no filler. The action and primary purpose are front-loaded, the metadata list is compact yet informative, and the sibling-pointer to get_bug_comments is placed at the end without bloating 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?

For a simple read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, this description is sufficiently complete. It explains what is returned, what is intentionally excluded, and where to go for the excluded data. The rich parameter descriptions in the schema cover the remaining input semantics.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both 'ids' and 'include_fields' thoroughly. The description's mention of 'by ID or alias' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific action ('Fetch'), a resource ('bugs'), and the retrieval key ('by ID or alias'). It also lists the metadata fields returned and explicitly notes what is not included, which differentiates it from get_bug_comments and other sibling tools.

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 clearly implies usage when you have bug IDs or aliases and explicitly routes comment retrieval to get_bug_comments. However, it does not mention when to use search_bugs for query-based lookup, so the guidance is present but not fully exhaustive.

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