Predict a ticket's code scope (cold-start)

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool is a suggestion only and not authoritative. However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only or describe side effects, though the context implies no destructive actions.

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, no fluff. Purpose and mechanism in the first sentence, usage constraint in the second, and parameter details in the third. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

No output schema, and description does not specify the return format beyond mentioning predictions of code areas and coupled tickets. It also omits potential error conditions. For a simple tool with minimal parameters, it covers essentials but could be more complete.

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 value by clarifying that project_id accepts name, slug, or UUID, and repo_path must be an absolute path. This aids the agent in correct parameter formatting.

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: predicting code areas and coupled tickets for tickets without code by matching text against a keyword index. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like rank_keystones and critical_path.

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 ('planning aid') and when not to use ('never used in keystone/critical_path'), providing clear context and implicitly contrasting with siblings.

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