get_bugs_from_cl

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

With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavior. It merely states the action (extract) but does not describe the return format, behavior when no bug IDs are found, or whether the operation is purely read-only. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise for a simple extraction tool, though it sacrifices detail for brevity.

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?

The tool has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry the burden of explaining return values and edge cases. It fails to mention what the output looks like (list, array, empty result) or any error conditions, leaving the description incomplete even for a low-complexity tool.

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 fails to explain either parameter. It doesn't explicitly link change_id to 'a CL' nor clarify the optional gerrit_base_url. The schema titles alone are insufficient, so the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Extracts') and resource ('bug IDs from the commit message of a CL'). It unambiguously distinguishes itself from siblings like get_commit_message (which returns the full message) and get_change_details (which returns change metadata).

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: when you need bug IDs from a CL's commit message, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternatives (e.g., get_commit_message) or state when not to use it, providing only implicit guidance.

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