Generate bug report

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

Annotations already declare it as a non-destructive, idempotent write; the description adds value beyond them by disclosing the concrete side effect (writes report.json into the artifacts directory) and the report's section structure. It does not state prerequisites such as whether investigation or evidence steps must be complete first, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the verb and deliverable first, then a parenthetical enumerating report contents. The content list is long but each item conveys what the report contains, so little is wasted; it borders on over-enumeration.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description still characterizes the report's contents and output location well. The remaining gap is lifecycle placement — no hint about which prior investigation steps must have run — but overall it is sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already carries a description pointing back to start_investigation, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds nothing about the investigationId (format, source, or requirement), so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Builds a structured JSON bug report') and names the artifact produced ('report.json in the artifacts directory'), which clearly separates it from generate_regression_test. It does not explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the deliverable is unambiguous.

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 statement of when to call this (e.g., after evidence collection/analysis and before close_investigation) or when not to. Usage is only implied by the lifecycle ordering of sibling tools and by the investigationId parameter.

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