解决 Bug（状态流转）

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds critical behavioral context: it is high-risk, defaults to a preview, and requires confirm=true to actually commit. This goes beyond the annotation flags and informs the agent of the two-step safety mechanism, which is crucial for a mutation tool.

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: two short sentences plus a parameter list. The high-risk warning is front-loaded, immediately setting expectations. Every element serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (preview/commit), the resolution options, and defaults. It does not mention prerequisites like bug state, but given the annotations and schema, the agent has enough to invoke it correctly. Slightly more context on side effects could elevate it, but it is adequately complete.

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%, and the description essentially mirrors the schema's parameter documentation (enum values, defaults for resolvedBuild and confirm). It adds a compact summary but no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. 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 marks a bug as resolved ('把 Bug 标记为已解决'), a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like close, activate, or confirm. The resolution enum list further specifies the possible outcomes, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 provides a clear usage pattern: preview by default, commit with confirm=true, which is essential for a destructive operation. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context implies it is for the resolve action, distinguishing it from close or assign. The guidance is sufficient for an agent to decide when to call it.

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