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 the return content ('status names and whether each status counts as resolved') and an example of filtering, which are not covered by annotations. It does not disclose rate limits or auth needs, but with annotations, the bar is lower, and this adds useful context.

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, followed by optional features and an example. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 (1 optional parameter, read-only), annotations cover safety, and the description adds return details and an example. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not fully explain return values like structure or pagination, leaving minor gaps. It is mostly complete for this context.

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 the optional 'ixCategory' parameter. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'filter by category ID' and an example, but does not provide additional details like format or constraints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most of the burden.

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 ('Lists') and resource ('all case statuses defined in FogBugz'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_categories' or 'list_milestones' beyond the resource name, which is implied but not stated.

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 by mentioning optional filtering by category ID and provides an example ('list statuses for category 1 (Bug)'), which suggests context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_categories' or 'search_cases', and does not state exclusions or prerequisites.

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