bug_start

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it creates a note in Inbox and sets an active bug state, which goes beyond schema fields. However, it omits key behavior such as what happens if an active bug already exists, permissions needed, or whether the note is mutable or deletable.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and outcome. Every word contributes to the stated purpose.

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?

Although an output schema exists for return values, the description is incomplete for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage. It omits parameter meaning and usage context, which are important for correct invocation.

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% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters. Required fields title and symptom are not described, and the optional domain parameter is entirely unexplained, leaving an agent no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.

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 (start) and resource (bug-session note), with scope details (in Inbox) and state intention (remember as active bug). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like bug_append or bug_close, but the purpose is clear from the wording.

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?

The description implies usage by saying 'Start a bug-session note,' but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions for choosing this over bug_append, bug_close, or other capture tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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