FogBugz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful context about default behavior (assignee defaults to current user if empty) and example usage, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or error handling beyond what annotations provide.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with a clear purpose statement followed by specific examples. Every sentence earns its place by enhancing understanding without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 moderate complexity, rich schema coverage, and read-only annotation, the description is mostly complete. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from mentioning the return format (e.g., list of cases with key fields) to fully guide the agent, though the examples partially compensate.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by implying usage examples (e.g., 'active' for status, up to 20 for limit), but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 specific action ('Lists FogBugz cases') and resource ('assigned to a specific user'), with explicit examples that distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search_cases' or 'get_case' by focusing on user-assigned listings rather than general searches or single-case retrieval.

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 usage with examples (e.g., listing active cases for a user or up to 20 for current user), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_cases' or mention any exclusions, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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