get_bug_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get bug reports', implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, making it inadequate for informed use.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the complexity of 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, or usage constraints, leaving gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to invoke the tool correctly in a broader context.

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 100% description coverage, providing clear details for all 6 parameters, including enums and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema adequately handles the parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('bug reports specifically from your FeedbackBasket projects'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_feedback' or 'search_feedback', which likely operate on similar data, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_feedback' or 'search_feedback'. It mentions 'specifically from your FeedbackBasket projects', but this doesn't clarify distinctions in usage context or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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