getBugDetail

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 minimal behavioral context beyond this, as '查看' implies reading, but it doesn't disclose additional traits like error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. With annotations covering the safety profile, a baseline 3 is appropriate for the limited added value.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Chinese that directly states the purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse 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 parameter, no output schema) and annotations covering read-only safety, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or how it differs from siblings, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description carries the burden. It implies the tool retrieves details for a single bug, which adds meaning by suggesting 'bugId' identifies the bug. However, it doesn't specify format or constraints beyond what the schema provides (e.g., numeric range), so it's not a full 5.

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 ('查看' meaning 'view') and resource ('单个 bug 详情' meaning 'single bug detail'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'getMyBugs' or 'resolveBug', which might also involve bug details, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getMyBugs' (which likely lists multiple bugs) or 'resolveBug' (which might include detail viewing). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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