query_my_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 clearly describes a read operation (listing bugs), so destructive behavior is not expected, but it does not explicitly state read-only or safety guarantees. The behavior is implied but not explicitly disclosed.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no extraneous wording. Every word is necessary to convey the tool's 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?

For a zero-parameter query tool with no output schema, the description adequately specifies what it returns (active bugs for a configured user). It is complete enough given the tool's simplicity, though it could mention the output structure or lack of filters.

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?

The input schema has no parameters and schema description coverage is 100% (empty set). Per guidelines, 0 parameters result in a baseline of 4; no additional parameter info is needed.

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 it lists active bugs assigned to a specific user (configured in ASSIGNED_TO), which is a specific verb-resource combination (list bugs) with a scope filter (assigned to user). It distinguishes from sibling tools like query_work_items which likely query all work items.

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 implies usage for retrieving bugs assigned to the configured user, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like query_work_items or get_work_item. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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