report_defect

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

No annotations are provided, placing the full burden on the description. It only indicates a mutate action (reporting) but omits critical behavioral details such as side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens after reporting.

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 sentence of 7 words, which is concise but too brief for a tool with 7 parameters and no other documentation. It says nothing about how to structure input or expected output.

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 complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to convey any behavioral context, parameter usage, or return expectations, leaving the agent with little confidence.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not add any meaning beyond parameter names. The schema has 7 parameters (6 required), yet the description merely states the tool's purpose without explaining fields like 'title', 'severity', or 'related_test_case_ids'.

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 verb 'Report', the resource 'a new defect/bug', and the context 'during testing'. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like 'record_test_result' which likely focus on test outcomes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'record_test_result' or 'create_test_case'). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or usage context.

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