FogBugz

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying it includes 'full event/comment history', which gives context on what data is returned beyond basic case info. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination, which are not covered by 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and includes a practical example in the second sentence. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, 1 required), 100% schema coverage, and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is mostly complete. It specifies the scope of returned data (details and history), but without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail on the return format. However, it adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage.

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 fully documents both parameters (caseId and cols). The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the default columns or format of 'cols'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Gets' and resource 'detailed information about a specific FogBugz case', specifying it includes 'full event/comment history'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_my_cases' or 'search_cases' by focusing on a single case's details rather than listing or searching multiple cases.

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 implies usage context with 'specific FogBugz case' and the example 'fetch all details and comments for case 42', suggesting it's for retrieving comprehensive data on an individual case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like 'search_cases' for broader queries, leaving some guidance implicit.

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