Get related bugs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call returns a summary per bug and defaults to all relation types, but it does not disclose output structure, pagination, or how irregular links are handled. No contradiction with annotations.

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 a single dense sentence with the action and resource front-loaded. The relationship list is useful but partially duplicates the schema enum; still, there is no filler or unnecessary elaboration.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, relation scope, and the general return shape. The output is only described as 'a summary of each', which is slightly underspecified, but it is adequate for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mostly repeats the relationship-type enum from the schema and adds no new meaning about bug_id format or relations semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 names the precise resource: 'every bug linked to the given bug' and enumerates the relevant relationship types, then states that a summary of each bug is returned. It clearly distinguishes this from single-bug or search tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'so the relationship graph can be understood in one call' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_bug or search_bugs, nor does it mention exclusions. Usage guidance is present only by implication.

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