timps_issue_triager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool does (detect duplicates, assign severity, suggest labels/owner) but does not describe side effects (likely none, as it's analysis), auth requirements, or output format. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 succinct, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and provides a clear action instruction. Two sentences with no fluff or redundancy earned every word.

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?

No output schema is present, so the description should at least hint at the expected return format. It describes the analysis steps but does not explain what the agent will receive (e.g., duplicate IDs, severity levels, labels). Given the tool's complexity, this is a notable gap, but the description is otherwise sufficient for core usage.

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 coverage is 100% as both parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying that the 'request' should contain raw issue title and body text combined, and repo_path is already explained in schema as 'Optional: local repo for duplicate detection.' The description enriches the user's understanding of how to construct the input.

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: to triage a bug report or GitHub issue by detecting duplicates, assigning severity, suggesting labels, and owner. It specifies the verb 'triage' and the resource (issue), and distinguishes it from other timps tools by focusing on triage tasks specifically.

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 a direct usage instruction: 'Pass the raw issue title and body text.' This tells the agent how to invoke the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives or mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use it), but the guidance is clear enough for the primary use case.

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