get_known_bugs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the non-CVE scope and return format, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, result ordering, or potential version ambiguity. With annotations carrying much of the burden, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 concise and effectively structured with labels 'USE WHEN' and 'RETURNS'. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage conditions, and return format. No fluff or redundancy.

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 the return format (bugs[] with title, fixed_in, workaround) compensating for the lack of output schema. It covers purpose, usage, and output adequately for a simple read-only tool. Minor gaps remain in parameter semantics, but overall completeness is strong.

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 'a specific package version', which loosely maps to package and version but does not explain the required ecosystem field or provide meaningful semantics. With 3 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description should compensate far more for parameter clarity.

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 'Non-CVE known bugs for a specific package version', which names the resource (bugs) and scope (specific package version). The 'Non-CVE' distinction differentiates it from the sibling get_vulnerabilities tool, providing a clear purpose and scope.

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 given: unexpected behavior that is NOT a security issue, or a pinned version misbehaves. The 'NOT a security issue' clause implicitly excludes get_vulnerabilities, but no alternative tool is named explicitly. This is clear context, though alternative naming would score higher.

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