FogBugz

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what gets returned (category IDs and names) and providing example categories. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination or rate limits.

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 zero waste: first states purpose with examples, second specifies return values. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple list operation with no parameters.

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 simple read-only list tool with no parameters and good annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, examples, and return format. The main gap is lack of output schema, but the description compensates by specifying return values. Slightly more context about ordering or completeness would make it perfect.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, focusing instead on output semantics. This is efficient and avoids redundancy.

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 action ('Lists') and resource ('all case categories defined in FogBugz'), provides specific examples (Bug, Feature Request, Inquiry), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on categories rather than cases, projects, or people. This is a specific verb+resource combination with clear differentiation.

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 when needing category IDs and names, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_statuses or list_milestones. There's no guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context to inference rather than explicit direction.

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