Bug Report Package

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the package is secret-scanned, outputs are redacted, OCR is used, steps come from the event log, and a report.md is generated for gh issue create. It does not explicitly warn about overwriting an existing report, but the schema's overwrite parameter covers that detail.

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 names the core action first and then lists the packaged artifacts. Every clause corresponds to a real output or processing step, and there is no filler.

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 18 optional parameters, full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete at the task level. It explains what the package contains and how it is built. The main remaining gap is not naming an input recording or sessionId explicitly in the prose, but the schema covers those parameters fully.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 18 parameters in detail. The description does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only confirms that redaction, GIF export, OCR, and report generation are supported. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: package a recording as a repro folder. The listed outputs (redacted clip/GIF, contact sheet, steps, OCR'd errors, environment, report.md) make clear this is a bug-report packaging tool, not a generic export, screenshot, or step guide. It is readily distinguishable from sibling tools like export_gif or contact_sheet.

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 implies the usage scenario: creating a paste-ready bug repro package for gh issue create. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives such as step_guide, review_recording, or manually combining screenshot/contact_sheet/export_gif. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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