get_known_bugs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by detailing the return format with field names. The description's 'non-CVE' qualifier further clarifies behavior beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise with three sentences covering purpose, usage, and return format. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a simple tool, including when to use and return format. However, it lacks details on potential pagination or filtering, but this is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the annotations providing basic safety information.

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 0%, and the description only mentions 'package version' without explaining individual parameters like ecosystem or that package is required. It provides only minimal guidance on the version parameter, leaving the agent to infer the rest.

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 retrieves non-CVE known bugs for a specific package version, and the 'USE WHEN' clause further clarifies its scope. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_vulnerabilities'.

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 'USE WHEN' conditions are provided: unexpected behavior that is not a security issue or a pinned version misbehaves. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context strongly implies it's for non-security issues, which is sufficient.

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