Get bug change history

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping context (status/resolution, assignee, flag, CC changes) and optional time/field filtering, but it does not disclose return shape, pagination, or ordering, which keeps this at an adequate mid-range score.

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, front-loaded with the core action, and uses compact examples followed by 'etc.' to avoid unnecessary length. Every clause adds useful information without repetition or filler.

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 read-only history tool with five parameters, most of which are schema-documented, and with safety annotations already present, the description is largely sufficient. It communicates the resource, the kind of data returned, and optional filtering, though it does not describe the response shape or ordering; this is a minor gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 description coverage is 80%, with bug_id, fields, new_since, and exclude_cc already described. The description reinforces the meaning of fields and time-window filtering and adds examples of relevant field categories, but it does not substantially go beyond the schema for the remaining parameters like limit.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch the field-change history of a bug' and enumerates concrete change types like status/resolution transitions, priority changes, assignee changes, and flag changes. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools such as get_bug (current state) and get_bug_comments (comments rather than field changes).

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_bug or get_bug_comments. It states what the tool fetches and mentions optional filters, but the agent must infer the selection logic from sibling names and general context.

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