prepare_issue_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool does not submit the report, checks for duplicates, stops if duplicate is true, and relies on the user to open submit_url. It also warns against including credentials, private URLs, or personal data, adding important context about what the tool does and does not do.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose and the critical non-submitting behavior. Each sentence earns its place by explaining the workflow, duplicate handling, authorization, or privacy constraints, with no wasted words.

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 description provides a complete overview of the tool's workflow, including duplicate detection, user authorization, and the fact that the user manually opens submit_url. Since an output schema exists, it needn't detail return values, but the mention of `duplicate`, `body`, and `submit_url` gives a good sense of expected output. The only gap is parameter semantics, which is covered in that dimension.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions the four required parameters (summary, how_to_reproduce, cause, suggested_fix). Although the parameter titles are self-explanatory, the description adds no parameter-level guidance or context, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 prepares a bug report about reapfield itself and explicitly highlights that it does NOT submit it. The verb 'prepare' plus the scope 'bug report about reapfield' distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage selectors, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this only when you hit a real bug in reapfield during real work and have verified a fix.' It also outlines the workflow (search existing issues, stop if duplicate, show body and ask for authorization), which clarifies the intended usage and how it differs from a submission tool.

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