snipe_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the transformation (each failure becomes an issue narrowed to a symbol), which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits side effects such as whether issues are persisted, whether authentication or repo context is required, and whether input is validated or modified.

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 core action and followed by precise detail. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the core action and parameter semantics but leaves gaps around prerequisites (e.g., repo context) and side effects (issue creation behavior). It is the minimum viable level for an agent to call the tool, but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well: it enumerates the allowed values for the source parameter (test, typecheck, lint, runtime) and describes the text parameter as the pasted failing output. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.

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 a specific verb and resource: it ingests external evidence (failing test/typecheck/lint/runtime output) and converts each failure into an issue narrowed to a suspect symbol. This is distinct from sibling tools like snipe_add or snipe_scan, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with those siblings.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies usage by describing the input format, but it never states prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions under which this tool should be preferred over manual issue creation.

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