get_related_bugs

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

With no annotations, the description alone should disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data it accesses, and what 'assess regression risk' means behaviorally. It does none of this, leaving the agent to guess about side effects, return values, and underlying logic.

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 that uses every word efficiently. It is easy to read, though the terseness contributes to under-specification; still, it earns a high mark for conciseness.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of bugs, a risk score, or both) and provide context about the file path. It does not, making the tool's behavior and expected output opaque for a moderately complex action.

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 schema has 50% description coverage (only change_description is described). The tool description does not elaborate on the required 'file_path' or how 'change_description' affects the risk assessment, so the agent has no additional semantic understanding beyond the schema's minimal info.

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 action ('Get bugs fixed in a file') and the resource, and adds a secondary purpose ('assess regression risk'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools focused on prediction, but the risk-assessment part is vague about what form it takes.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'predict_regression' or 'simulate_change'. The description implies a use case (when you want to see historical bugs and regression risk for a file) but gives no exclusions or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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