Bite: does a test notice my fix?

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses cost ('Free, needs no key'), isolation ('never touches the user's files', works on a copy), and latency ('Can take as long as the tests do') — exactly the traits an agent needs before committing to a potentially slow call. This is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, since the mutation happens on a copy rather than the user's files.

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?

Front-loaded with the invocation trigger, then mechanism, then fallback action, then cost and safety. Every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description does explain how to read a passing result, and safety/latency are covered. It stops short of describing what a failing result or an inconclusive run looks like, which would help an agent act on the response without a second guess.

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 'since' and 'folder' are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about scope selection or defaults, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific mechanism — 'Bite takes your change back out of a copy of the project and runs the project's tests' — which tells an agent exactly what the tool does and how, far beyond restating the name. It also frames the outcome interpretation ('If they still pass, no test shows your fix does anything'), so the tool's role is unambiguous.

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 trigger is explicit and well-placed: 'Call this after you change code to fix a bug, before you tell the user it's fixed,' plus a re-invocation rule ('add a test... then call this again'). It does not mention when not to call it or reference the sibling ask_bite as an alternative, so routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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