search_past_bugs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that the knowledge base currently indexes 8 documents, giving a sense of coverage. It does not describe return format, error behavior, or performance characteristics, but for a read-only search tool, this is a minor gap.

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?

Description is four sentences, each with a purpose: purpose, query guidance, indexing status, and usage recommendation. No redundant or vague phrases; front-loaded with the core function.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, query construction, and when to use it. The lack of return format details is not critical given the simplicity, but a bit more about result format would help.

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 query and maxResults both having descriptive text including examples. The description adds context about what to query but does not add meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool searches a 'code_failures knowledge base' for bugs already solved, using the specific verb 'search' and naming the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_references and file_bug by focusing specifically on past bug fixes.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool before debugging any integration issue, providing strong when-to-use guidance. It also lists appropriate query types (error messages, symptoms, library names, keywords). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the directive is clear enough.

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