Get product components

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

Annotations already mark the call read-only and idempotent; the description adds useful return-content detail (triage owners, milestones). However, it claims the response includes active versions and milestones even though include_versions_and_milestones defaults to false, which is somewhat misleading about default behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded and the purpose/usage hint is in the second sentence.

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 tool with four params and no output schema, the description names its return sections and gives a concrete workflow context, which is enough for most selections. It loses a point for not noting the opt-in defaults for inactive components and versions/milestones.

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 only 50%; the description helps map 'active versions, and milestones' to the boolean parameter and explains why the product parameter matters. It does not address include_inactive_components or clarify that optional sections are off by default, leaving the remaining parameters under-explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a product's details') and enumerates the actual contents: components with descriptions and triage owners, active versions, and milestones. The last sentence ties it to finding a component before filing/searching, which separates it from bug-centric siblings and list_products.

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?

Gives a clear use case: 'Use this to find the right component name before filing or searching.' This tells an agent when to call it, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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