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 it retrieves 'detailed information' and uses an example, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or data scope beyond what annotations cover. No contradiction with 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, followed by a brief, relevant example. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function and usage, with zero waste or redundancy.

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 parameter, read-only, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose and provides an example, but could improve by mentioning what 'detailed information' includes or potential errors. Annotations handle safety, so gaps are minor.

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 'ixArea' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by mentioning 'numeric ID' and providing an example, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema's description of 'The area ID to view'. Baseline score due to 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 ('Gets detailed information') and resource ('about a specific FogBugz area'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'view_project' by specifying the resource type (area vs project). It provides a concrete example with ID 7, enhancing clarity.

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 details for a specific area ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'list_projects' for broader listings) or any exclusions. It provides basic context but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or edge cases.

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