root_cause_categoriesCategorize closed bugs by root cause—code, design, requirements, or security—to identify defect patterns and guide quality improvements.
Categorise closed bugs by root cause (code, design, requirements, security).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| github_ref | Yes | GitHub 'owner/repo' reference |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The word 'Categorise' is ambiguous: it could mean classifying bugs into buckets in a report, or potentially writing categories back to bug records. The description does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies data, or what permissions are required.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the parenthetical categories add useful specificity without bloat.
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?
For a low-complexity tool with one well-documented parameter and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient for invocation. The main gaps are usage guidance and explicit read-only behavior, but these are partially covered by the tool's analytical nature and the presence of an output schema.
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 100%: the single `github_ref` parameter is already documented as a GitHub 'owner/repo' reference. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema already fully covers it.
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 names a specific verb ('Categorise'), a specific resource ('closed bugs'), and the exact dimensions ('code, design, requirements, security'). This is clear and distinguishes it from the sibling analysis tools in topic, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling.
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?
Usage is implied: an agent can infer this tool is for root-cause categorization of closed bugs. However, the description does not state when to prefer it over related tools like defect_trend_analysis or quality_hotspot_detection, nor does it provide any exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.