List bugs of a ground

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the default status filter, the wild→chasing→catched lifecycle, the summary vs full view contents, impactCount semantics, and score meaning (0–8 change-risk). This goes well beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 long but densely informative, with every sentence earning its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers alternatives, defaults, status semantics, returned fields, and parameter usage without filler or redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the returned fields (id, seq, target, title, score, status, timestamps, description excerpt, impactCount) and explains parameter effects. It also references relevant sibling tools, making it complete for both selection and invocation.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial semantic value: it explains status aliases and the active default, pairs limit with order for 'the N newest', defines view='full', and clarifies score and impactCount meanings not obvious from parameter names or enum values alone.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Scans the bugs (issues eroding the ground) of one ground.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_bug tool, which covers the 'already know the number/id' case, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: use get_bug for a single known bug, use get_impact for the full blast-radius list, and pass explicit status values like 'catched' or 'all' when wanting non-default results. It also clarifies the default active filter and how limit/order can bound a scan.

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