verify_bug

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses core behavior: 'pass -> close, fail -> activate'. However, it does not mention permissions, state prerequisites, or irreversibility, which would be expected for a state-changing tool.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool's action. No extraneous words; every word serves a purpose.

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?

Description covers the core logic but lacks context on when to use it versus sibling tools (e.g., close_bug) and does not specify prerequisites (e.g., bug state). For a simple tool with complete schema, it is marginally adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by linking the result parameter to the outcome (close or activate), which is not explicitly in the schema. This enhances understanding of the parameter's impact.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'verify' and resource 'bug result', and specifies behavior based on outcome. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like close_bug and resolve_bug by focusing on verification, not just closing or resolving.

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?

Description implies usage for verifying bug results, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like close_bug or comment_bug. There are no when-not or alternative references.

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