list_bugs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation with filtering but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no filters are applied (e.g., returns all bugs). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List bugs') and briefly mentions key filtering options. There is zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward list tool.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool with 4 parameters and sibling alternatives. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context like default behaviors (e.g., what 'cwd' means for project_path). For a list tool with filtering complexity, more completeness is needed to guide effective use.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by mentioning filtering by status, priority, and tags, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., how tags filtering works is only in schema). With high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 ('List') and resource ('bugs'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_bug' (singular) and 'search_bugs_global' (broader search), though it doesn't explicitly mention these alternatives. The description is specific but could be more precise about scope compared to siblings.

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 mentions optional filtering but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_bugs_global' or 'get_bug'. It doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., needing an initialized bugtracker) or context for filtering. Usage is implied through parameter mentions but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions.

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