get_related_bugs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the tool's purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, required permissions, side effects, or output format. The 'assess regression risk' part is vague and lacks detail on how the assessment is performed or returned.

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 that conveys two main actions. While it omits necessary details, it is efficient in its phrasing and avoids redundancy. It could be slightly reworded for clarity but overall is appropriately sized.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what the output contains (e.g., list of bugs, risk score) or how to interpret the regression risk. For a tool that assesses risk, this is a significant gap.

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 50%, with only 'change_description' having a brief schema description. The description does not add meaning for 'file_path' (the required parameter) beyond a generic expectation. It mentions 'change_description' but adds no extra detail beyond the schema's 'Brief description of proposed change'.

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 dual purpose: retrieving bugs fixed in a file and assessing regression risk. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('bugs fixed in a file'), and the 'assess regression risk' part adds differentiation from simple bug queries. However, it could be more precise by explicitly linking to the parameters.

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 on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'predict_regression' or 'simulate_change'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or alternative tools. The description leaves the agent to infer usage context without explicit instructions.

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