TaskBounty

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the award is staged as pending_review, finalized after admin approval, and requires a TaskBounty API key. This goes beyond the bare action and helps the agent understand the asynchronous nature.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. Auth requirement and workflow are included efficiently.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, workflow, and prerequisite, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke it. It doesn't detail return values, but that's not critical here.

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 schema already fully describes the two parameters (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional detail about parameter format or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb 'Selects' and identifies the resource 'winning submission for the bounty'. It also clarifies the process (pending_review, admin approval), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fund_bounty or submit_pr.

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 this is the tool to call when a submission has won, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as cancel_bounty or fund_bounty. No exclusions are given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement, and clearly states the limitation that funded/open bounties cannot be canceled via this tool. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it stops short of describing the exact outcome (e.g., whether the draft is deleted or just marked as canceled).

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 long, front-loaded with the primary action ('Cancels an unfunded draft'), followed by essential exclusions and requirements. No redundant or filler content, making it optimally concise.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the main action, scope, exclusions, and authentication requirement. It is mostly complete, though it could mention the direct side effect (e.g., permanently removes the draft) or any idempotency/error behavior. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context for correct 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 100% coverage for the single parameter 'task_id' with its own description, so the schema already documents the parameter. The description does not add extra detail about the parameter beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 'Cancels' and the resource 'unfunded draft', making the action specific and unambiguous. It also distinguishes from funded/open bounties by explicitly mentioning they cannot be canceled with this tool, thus setting it apart from sibling tools like fund_bounty or award_bounty.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states when to use (for unfunded drafts) and when not to use (for funded/open bounties), and even directs to the manual refund through the dashboard as an alternative. This fully informs the agent of correct selection criteria.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'No API key required' (auth) and lists the exact return values, including coverage percentage, gap, recommended package, and URLs. It doesn't mention errors or rate limits, but 'check' implies a read-only operation with no side effects.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, return content, and usage trigger. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the tool's behavior, inputs, outputs, and context sufficiently. It is a complete and actionable description.

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 already fully describes the single 'repo' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds only the phrase 'GitHub repo' in context, providing no additional syntax or behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Check a GitHub repo's current test coverage and what it takes to reach 80%', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, which are all bounty management operations.

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 'Use this when a user asks about test coverage, code quality, or how to raise coverage on a repository,' providing clear context. It does not mention exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated so no further contrast is needed.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions auth requirements (API key) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the response looks like, or whether there are side effects. The status list gives minimal output context but is insufficient.

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 sentence that front-loads the action ('Check status') and includes the relevant API key requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

Despite the simple schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a submission, what the return structure is, possible errors, or how it relates to sibling tools like get_bounty_submissions. With no annotations or output schema, more context is needed.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning for the 'submission_id' parameter. It doesn't explain what a submission ID is, how to obtain it, or its expected format. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 'Check status' and the resource 'submission' with an explicit list of possible statuses (pending, accepted, rejected, paid). It is unambiguous about the tool's function, but it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like get_bounty_submissions, so it falls short of a 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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than usage context. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or conditions for use.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the bounty is created as DRAFT/UNFUNDED, that funding is not included, and that an API key is required. It also mentions the workflow dependency on fund_bounty. However, it doesn't mention whether drafts are editable, visible, or have other side effects, leaving a small gap.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose, but it repeats itself: 'Create a new bounty as an unfunded DRAFT' and 'Bounty is created as DRAFT/UNFUNDED' are redundant. A single mention of the draft status would be more concise.

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 provides essential context: the draft concept, the funding workflow, and the authentication requirement. It also notes the return values (task_id and slug) despite having no output schema. Given the high parameter count and no annotations, this is reasonably complete, though it could clarify the implications of being a draft (e.g., visibility, editing).

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description does not add information about any specific parameter. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'bounty' and clearly defines the special state 'unfunded DRAFT'. It also states the return values (task_id and slug), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool fund_bounty by explicitly assigning draft creation to this tool.

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?

It provides an explicit sequential guideline: 'Call fund_bounty next to get a Stripe Checkout URL the user can open to fund.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (for the draft phase) and what to do next. It also mentions the prerequisite (API key), giving clear usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the API key requirement and program availability constraint. It also specifies the return content (qualifying products and fixed reward), which is useful, though it doesn't describe error behavior or list format.

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 compact sentences that immediately state the purpose, then add necessary context. Every clause adds value without 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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, availability, and the nature of returned data. It is fully adequate for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by explaining what 'offers' means in this context, but no parameter-level detail is needed.

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 opens with 'List the active Customer Bounty offers', using a specific verb and resource. It further clarifies what qualifies (Coverage Uplift products and fixed rewards), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_open_bounties or get_bounty_detail.

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?

It clearly states prerequisites: requires a TaskBounty API key and is only available once the program is live. It doesn't explicitly discuss when to use this over alternatives, but the context is enough for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: two distinct modes (list vs. enroll), the side effect of enrollment ('mint its stable link'), the requirement to disclose potential rewards, and the need for an API key. It doesn't mention reversibility or response format, but covers essential operational traits well.

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 four sentences and immediately front-loads the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: the core listing behavior, the enrollment path, the disclosure requirement, and the API key prerequisite. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to invoke both modes, preconditions (API key, terms_version), and a legal/ethical requirement (disclosure). It could mention the exact response format, but the return behavior ('lists each agent and its link') is reasonably clear.

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%, but the description adds critical meaning beyond field names: it explains when agent_id is needed, that accept_terms must be true to enroll, and that terms_version must come from this tool's listing. This conditional logic is not fully captured by the schema alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get your agents' Customer Bounty referral links.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating it lists agents and their links (if enrolled) and also handles enrollment, differentiating it from customer_bounty_referral_status and others.

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?

Provides clear usage instructions: no arguments lists links; pass accept_terms:true with agent_id and terms_version to enroll. It also notes the API key requirement and disclosure obligation. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions a key privacy behavior (never returns referred-customer identities), an authentication requirement (API key), and the nature of the output (counts and totals). It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but 'check' strongly implies that, and the described behavior is sufficiently transparent for a simple status endpoint.

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 concise and well-structured: three sentences that efficiently cover purpose, output specifics, a key behavioral constraint, an optional filter, and an authentication requirement. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with no fluff 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?

For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what the tool does, what it returns (counts by stage, reward totals), a critical privacy behavior, and the auth requirement. It does not detail output format or error cases, but those are not essential for this simple status-checking 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 input schema already fully documents the only parameter (agent_id) as 'Optional agent UUID to filter by' (100% coverage). The description repeats this in the phrase 'Optionally filter by agent_id' without adding new meaning, so it adds no value beyond the schema. However, because schema coverage is complete and there is only one parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: checking the status of Customer Bounty referrals, with specific details on what is included (counts by stage, approved/paid reward totals). It also distinguishes itself by explicitly noting it never returns referred-customer identities, setting it apart from sibling tools like customer_bounty_offers or customer_bounty_referral_link that deal with related but different aspects.

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 when to use this tool (to check referral status and reward totals) and includes an exclusion: it never returns referred-customer identities, so it should not be used for identity lookup. It also states a prerequisite: requires a TaskBounty API key. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide examples of when not to use it beyond the identity exclusion.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that this tool does NOT charge automatically, that the user must open the returned URL, and that an API key is required. It also notes the draft bounty context. It could add details about idempotency or side effects, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 three sentences, all valuable: it states the primary action, explains the return value, clarifies the payment behavior, and mentions the API key requirement. No redundancy or fluff; front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return value (Stripe Checkout URL). With a single simple parameter and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the draft bounty requirement, the checkout flow, and the API key prerequisite. This is complete for a straightforward payment-initiation 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 schema already describes the single parameter task_id as 'The draft task id to fund.' The description reinforces the draft aspect but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not compensate or expand on parameter meaning.

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 specific action: 'Create a Stripe Checkout session for funding a draft bounty.' This is a distinct verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like award_bounty or cancel_bounty. It also clarifies the purpose is to initiate funding via Stripe, not to award or cancel.

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 for when to use the tool: when funding a draft bounty. It also explains the payment flow (user must visit URL) and the requirement of a TaskBounty API key. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among siblings, just implying the use case through the phrase 'for funding a draft bounty.'

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, mention any required permissions, or describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if the bounty ID is invalid). The list of returned fields gives some insight into the response, but it lacks important context about side effects or prerequisites.

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, compact sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by a parenthetical list of the key fields. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

For a simple one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and correctly identifies the input type. However, it would be more complete if it mentioned that the operation is read-only or how to handle missing bounties, but given the tool's simplicity, the current level is adequate.

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 already provides a thorough description of the parameter ('The task id (UUID) or human slug.'), and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. According to the rubric, with 100% schema description coverage, the baseline score is 3, and this description does not go beyond that baseline.

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 'Fetch' with the resource 'a single bounty' and enumerates the specific fields (description, evaluation criteria, repo URL, reward). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_open_bounties, which lists multiple bounties, and get_bounty_submissions, which fetches submissions rather than bounty 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 implies usage when the agent needs details for a specific bounty rather than a list, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. The guidance is implicit from the phrase 'single bounty' and the fetch action, but no direct comparison is made with sibling tools.

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

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

The description discloses the API key requirement and the return fields (verification_status, external_link, agent_name). Since no annotations are provided, this helps fill the gap, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or pagination. 'List' implies a read operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the action. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple listing tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input (task_id), auth (API key), and output (fields). It omits some details like pagination but is adequate.

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% with a single task_id parameter described as 'The task id.' The description adds no further parameter details beyond implying the task_id corresponds to a bounty the user posted, but this is already inferable.

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 'List submissions for a bounty you posted,' specifying the action (list), resource (submissions), and ownership scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_bounty_detail and list_my_bounties.

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 'for a bounty you posted,' indicating the user must be the bounty owner. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to infer when to use it.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement and scope (own bounties), but does not describe return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. 'List' implies a safe read operation, yet more detail would be helpful.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no filler. Every word contributes value, making it appropriately concise.

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 tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but there is no output schema and the description does not explain what is returned (e.g., a list of bounty objects). This is a notable gap since the description must compensate for the lack of structured output information.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond restating the status filter, which the schema already documents. It does not harm but also does not significantly enrich parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('bounties posted by the authenticated user'), which distinguishes it from sibling `list_open_bounties`. It also mentions filtering by status, adding further 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 clearly implies the use case: listing bounties owned by the authenticated user, which sets it apart from tools like `list_open_bounties` or `get_bounty_detail`. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear and no exclusions are stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the returned fields (title, reward, repo, language, task id/slug) and the scope filter ('open, funded'), but does not describe ordering, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or any side-effect or permission details. For a simple read-only list, this is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action, scope, and return fields. No wasted words, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

For a simple list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete: it specifies the filter scope and the return fields. It doesn't explicitly mention default limit behavior, but that is already in the schema. The absence of pagination details is minor given the simple nature of the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (limit, language, platform) having its own description. The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 tool lists currently open, funded bounties on TaskBounty, specifying the resource (bounties) and action (list). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like list_my_bounties and get_bounty_detail by emphasizing 'open, funded' status, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 for browsing available bounties but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The context is minimal: 'currently open, funded' suggests a discovery use case, but there are no stated exclusions or comparisons.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying the short-lived (~1h) nature, read-only vs. write-scoped access, the fork push flow, and the API key requirement. It does not mention error handling or response format, but the disclosed details are substantial and relevant.

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 concise yet complete, covering private repos, public repos, fallback, and requirements in four sentences. Each sentence adds distinct value, and the structure clearly differentiates scenarios. No fluff 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?

The description covers the key behavioral aspects: access provisioning, scoping, fallback, and prerequisite. It does not describe the return format or usage of the minted URLs, which would be helpful given no output schema, but the core functional context is sufficiently explained for a tool of this complexity.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('task_id' and 'agent_id'). The description adds context by linking task_id to code-task repos and clarifying the attribute purpose of agent_id, but it does not materially extend the schema's parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('mint') and resource ('repo access'), covering both private and public repository scenarios. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on repo access provisioning rather than bounty management or submission.

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 for when to use the tool: for private repos it offers a read-only clone and optionally a managed fork; for public repos it indicates normal fork behavior. It also notes the patch upload as a fallback, giving practical guidance. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It richly discloses behaviors: accepted crypto rails (solana_usdc, eth, btc), rejection of bank, security constraints (no private keys), payout release timing (first immediate, then monthly above $50). This is proactive and detailed.

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 multi-sentence but every sentence adds critical information (purpose, accepted rails, bank exclusion, security warning, API key requirement, payout timing). It is front-loaded with purpose and remains structured. Slightly long but appropriate for the complexity.

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 complexity (multiple crypto rails, security pitfalls, payout policies), the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, input constraints, expected behavior, and outcome expectations (payout release and threshold), with no output schema needed. All key aspects are addressed.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the bank enum is rejected, details each crypto address format (Solana base58, EVM 0x, BTC), and instructs omitting address for bank. This clarifies the actual behavior for each parameter value, far exceeding schema descriptions.

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 tool's function: registering a payout destination for a headless/API-only agent, with a specific verb ('Registers') and resource ('payout destination'). It distinguishes from the web dashboard alternative and from sibling tools, none of which handle payouts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (headless/API-only agent needing payment) and when not to (bank payouts not settable, dashboard-only). It also clarifies exclusions (no sensitive data) and prerequisites (API key). This goes beyond basic guidance and directly addresses alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses an authentication requirement (TaskBounty API key) and implies a mutating submission action, but does not describe side effects, idempotency, or response behavior. This is adequate but minimal.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The key action, parameter nuance, and prerequisite are front-loaded in a compact format.

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?

For a submission tool with 5 parameters but no output schema or annotations, the description gives the essential action, auth need, and link convention. It omits what happens after submission and doesn't point to check_submission_status, but the core invocation is covered. Slightly minimal but functional.

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 covers 60% of parameters with descriptions. The description reinforces that external_link should be the PR URL for code tasks, matching the schema, and mentions API key requirement. It doesn't add meaning for task_id or agent_id, but those are self-explanatory given the tool name and purpose.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'submit' with object 'a bounty', clearly identifying the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like award_bounty and cancel_bounty, which handle different lifecycle stages.

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?

Provides concrete guidance: external_link should be the upstream PR URL for code tasks, and a TaskBounty API key is required. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the submission action is unique among siblings, so context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well. It openly discloses the narrow scope (workflow + update-automation hygiene only), what it does not check, that no API key is required, and that it returns a 'safe summary' with report URL. It also addresses privacy handling for private repos.

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 main purpose and each sentence adds useful information, but it is a dense paragraph. It could be broken into bullet points, yet it remains readable and earns its length given the scope caveats.

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?

With no output schema, the description clearly explains what the user will receive (findings by category, counts, unlisted report URL, fix options). It also covers limitations, prerequisites (no API key), and private-repo handling, making it complete for a simple one-parameter 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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single `repo` parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the public-repo restriction and explaining how to handle private repos, which goes beyond the schema's text.

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 tool scans public GitHub repos for GitHub Actions and CI security/maintenance hygiene, with a specific use case ('before launch' for AI-built apps). This distinguishes it from the sibling bounty tools, which are all about bounty management.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context ('before launch', 'ideal for apps built with Lovable, Bolt, Replit, Cursor, or v0'), explicit when-not-to-use (does not check secrets, auth, etc., and not for private repos), and an alternative (running `npx taskbounty-check .` locally for private repos).

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