Criar relatório de bug

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only says 'gera' (generates), without clarifying whether the report is returned, saved to disk, or has side effects. No information about permissions, reversibility, or dependencies is included.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a high conciseness score.

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?

With a simple 2-parameter tool and an output schema present, the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, the lack of usage guidance and behavioral transparency leaves gaps for optimal tool selection and invocation, making it only minimally complete.

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%, with meaningful descriptions for both 'title' and 'failures'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, which aligns with the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Gera um bug report estruturado a partir de falhas de teste' (generates a structured bug report from test failures), specifying a concrete verb, resource, and input. This distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_failures and generate_tests, which analyze failures and generate tests respectively.

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 usage when test failures are available ('a partir de falhas de teste'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The schema mentions failures come from analyze_failures, but this is not in the description itself.

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