get_bounty

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It reveals the key format but does not mention behavioral aspects such as whether the tool is read-only, includes any side effects, rate limits, or what 'full record' entails beyond the key. Minimal transparency.

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?

A single, concise sentence that front-loads the essential information (purpose and key format). No redundant words or phrases.

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?

The description adequately covers the key format and scope (single bounty record), but given no output schema, it would benefit from mentioning the structure of the returned 'full record' or any additional context. Acceptable for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The single parameter 'key' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds the crucial format 'owner/repo#issue_num', which provides concrete guidance beyond the schema's bare type string.

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 explicitly states it returns a full record for a single bounty by key, with the key format 'owner/repo#issue_num'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_bounties (list multiple) and get_stats (statistics).

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 indicates when to use this tool (to get a single bounty record), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like list_bounties for multiple records or find_matching for searching. The sibling names provide implicit context.

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