FogBugz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output is a 'direct URL' for sharing, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or URL format specifics, keeping it at a baseline level.

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, followed by a concise example. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying usage without redundancy, making it efficiently structured and easy to parse.

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 (one parameter, read-only), no output schema, and good annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and usage well but could benefit from minor additions like mentioning the URL format or any sharing constraints, slightly limiting completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'caseId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic context by implying the parameter is used to 'get the link for case 42', but does not provide additional details beyond what the schema already covers, aligning with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('a direct URL to a FogBugz case'), with a specific example that distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_case' (which likely returns case details rather than a URL). It explicitly mentions the sharing purpose ('can be shared with teammates'), making the purpose distinct and actionable.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to get a link for case 42'), implying it's for sharing URLs rather than retrieving case data. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_case' for case details), which prevents a perfect score.

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