FogBugz

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying it retrieves 'detailed information' and provides an example, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like error handling, response format, or authentication needs. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a helpful example. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function and usage without 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 low complexity (single required parameter), high schema coverage, and read-only annotation, the description is mostly complete. It lacks output schema, so it doesn't explain return values, but for a simple lookup tool, the description adequately covers purpose and usage without being overly verbose.

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 'ixProject' fully documented in the schema as 'The project ID to view'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by mentioning it's a 'numeric ID' and giving an example, but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid ranges or constraints.

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 project'), specifying it requires a numeric ID. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_projects' (which lists multiple projects) and 'get_case' (which retrieves case information rather than project details).

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 by stating this tool is for viewing a specific project by its ID, implying it should be used when you need details for one known project. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context differentiates it from list_projects (for browsing) and create_project (for creation).

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