aida_log_bug

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Only states '记录' (records) without disclosing persistence mechanism, visibility, notifications generated, or return value. Missing behavioral traits like idempotency or confirmation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with trigger condition. No redundant words. Could potentially combine into one sentence but structure is efficient and scannable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, a logging tool should ideally disclose what happens after invocation (e.g., ticket creation, notifications). Description covers minimal 'when' and 'what' but omits 'what happens next' and sibling relationships expected for a 3-param tool with side effects.

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% with complete Chinese documentation for each parameter. Description provides only generic '记录 bug 信息' without adding syntax guidance, validation rules, or usage tips beyond what schema already specifies. Baseline 3 appropriate.

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 specific trigger ('在开发或测试中发现 bug 时') and action ('记录 bug 信息'). Clear verb+resource. Loses one point because it doesn't differentiate from sibling 'aida_bug_fix' (logging vs fixing) or distinguish from other 'aida_log_*' tools.

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?

Provides implied usage context ('当...发现 bug 时调用') covering when to use. However, lacks explicit guidance on when NOT to use (e.g., vs aida_log_deviation) or workflow relationship to aida_bug_fix.

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