file_bug

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full weight. It discloses the file write location ('code_failures/bugs/'), auto-indexing behavior, and the important user-confirmation requirement. However, it does not mention potential overwrite behavior for an existing shortName filename or any other edge-case side effects, so there is a slight gap for a write operation.

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 compact yet informative: a clear purpose, a timing directive, storage details, and a crucial safety warning. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The formatting with 'IMPORTANT' draws appropriate attention to the confirmation requirement, and the total length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, all documented in the schema, and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does, when to use it, where it writes, and a critical user-confirmation step. The absence of return-value details is acceptable given there is no output schema, and the usage context is fully covered.

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 base score is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific insights beyond what are already in the schema, but it also does not need to since every parameter has a clear description. The tool-level details like file location and confirmation are separate from parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair: 'Save a newly discovered bug to the knowledge base.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_past_bugs and file_reference by targeting bug reports specifically. The mention of writing to 'code_failures/bugs/' and auto-indexing further clarifies its unique purpose.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call this AFTER solving a hard bug to capture the knowledge for future sessions.' It also includes a critical timing/consent directive: 'IMPORTANT: Show the user the generated content and get confirmation before calling.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool and the required prerequisite before invocation.

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