locate_bug_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is a 'suggestion' and warns to 'always read the flagged files yourself before concluding'. It also reveals the output includes 'adversarial verification notes' for HOT files, adding transparency about the tool's analytical rigor and 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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: action/method, output format, and usage caution. There is no redundant phrasing, and the technical term 'stigmergic ant-swarm' adds specificity without being wasteful.

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 covers the core purpose, output format, and a critical caveat. It mentions the return format (markdown heatmap) which aligns with the existence of an output schema. However, it does not clarify how the optional stack_trace parameter affects behavior or provide any implementation details, leaving a moderate gap in completeness given no annotations.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any parameter semantics. It neither specifies what repo_path should contain, how to phrase bug_description, nor the optional nature of stack_trace. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but the description adds no explicit guidance, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of 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's purpose: 'Locate the files most likely responsible for a bug' via a specific method ('stigmergic ant-swarm search'). It also details the output format (HOT/WARM/COLD heatmap), making the tool's functionality unmistakable. With no sibling tools, differentiation is not needed, but the verb+resource+method structure is strong.

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 provides clear context: use this when you want to prioritize files to read for a bug. It explicitly frames the output as 'a suggestion to prioritize reading, not a verdict', which guides interpretation. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or any alternatives, as there are no siblings listed.

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