Read a bug report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail: scoped by FEEDBUG_PROJECT_KEY to a single project, and error behavior ('Bug not found' for unknown/project-mismatched IDs). This provides meaningful context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 purpose and return value. It uses clear sections (Returns, Use when, Do not use when, Behavior) that are easy to scan. Every sentence adds distinct value without repetition.

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 single parameter, full schema coverage, explicit annotations, and the existence of sibling tools for specific slices of data, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, scope, error handling, and usage guidance. No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% and already provides a rich description of the 'id' parameter (accepts UUID or tracker identifier, case-insensitively, rejected if belonging to another project). The tool has only one parameter, so there is limited room for the description to add more. The description indirectly reinforces the parameter semantics by noting it returns data for a single bug.

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 tool name and title ('feedbug_get_bug', 'Read a bug report') clearly indicate the action. The description specifies it reads a bug report in full and lists the fields returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools that return partial context (e.g., feedbug_get_html_context, feedbug_get_diagnostics).

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 explicitly states when to use ('you picked a bug out of feedbug_list_bugs and are about to reproduce or fix it'), and provides a clear 'Do not use when' list with specific alternatives (feedbug_get_html_context, feedbug_get_diagnostics, feedbug_get_replay). This pairs perfectly with the sibling tool context.

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