step_bisect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful traits: execution happens in an isolated worktree (containment) and the call is resume-safe (idempotent/re-runnable). It stops short of saying what state it mutates, what the worktree isolation protects, or any limits, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

A single tight sentence with the key qualifiers front-loaded and no filler. It is efficiently sized, though its brevity is also the source of the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the isolation/resume notes cover the core behaviour. What is missing is workflow positioning against the four sibling tools, which for a multi-step bisect process is material context.

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?

There is a single parameter (session_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds nothing about its expected value, format, or provenance. The parameter is self-evident by name, which keeps this from being worse, but the description contributes no semantic value.

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 states a concrete action (test one candidate) and implies the resource (a bisect session), so the purpose is recognisable. However, it does not distinguish this step operation from the sibling run_bisect or explain its place in the start_bisect/run_bisect/bisect_status workflow, leaving the exact role ambiguous.

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?

'Resume-safe across calls' hints that it can be re-invoked, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use step_bisect versus run_bisect or start_bisect, nor any prerequisites or ordering constraints. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from sibling names.

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