find_bug

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what it searches for but not how it operates (e.g., static analysis or execution), safety implications, or output format. This is insufficient for an agent to understand side effects or limitations.

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, concise sentence covering the core purpose. Every word is necessary, and there is no extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on how this tool integrates with siblings or what makes it unique, leaving some gaps for an agent deciding between similar tools.

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?

Both parameters are documented in the schema with descriptions ('User code to debug.' and 'The full text of the problem description.'). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 purpose: searching for logical errors, boundary flaws, or runtime bugs. The verb 'search' and specific resource types provide a precise action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'review_solution' or 'stress_testing' which focus on different aspects.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'review_solution' or 'stress_testing', nor does it specify prerequisites or context.

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