report_bug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses anonymization, the human-confirmation gate, and that VibeCTX never submits the issue itself. It does not describe what the preview returns or whether the tool mutates local state, so a small gap remains for a tool whose outcome depends on elicitation.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the preview/anonymization point is front-loaded and the elicitation caveat follows. Efficient, though the fallback CLI sentence slightly crowds the core behavioral claim.

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 no annotations, so the description is the only source of truth. It covers the safety/consent behavior well but leaves the input contract entirely unexplained for a 4-parameter tool with 25% schema coverage. Adequate but with a clear gap on the parameter side.

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 only 25% and three of four parameters (operation, where, errorClass) have no schema description. The description compensates for none of this — it never mentions what the required operation/where/errorClass inputs mean or how they should be chosen, so an agent must infer everything from bare enums.

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: 'Preview an anonymized operational-failure report.' This is unmistakably distinct from the sibling read/ops tools (get_docs, search, refresh, doctor). It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the purpose is clear enough to route correctly.

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 the condition for the tool's primary path ('Only a human confirmation through MCP elicitation creates a pre-filled GitHub issue link') and names the alternative path when that condition fails ('Without elicitation, use vibectx report-bug in a terminal'). This is a rare case of complete when/when-not guidance.

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