ddflow_bug_found

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does convey workflow behavior: reporting first is necessary for a later fix to be accepted, and unrecorded bugs cannot be proven found. However, it does not describe what actually happens when invoked, such as whether a record is created, whether an ID is auto-generated, or what state changes occur. Moderate transparency.

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 core instruction is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the follow-up sentences provide useful context about why reporting first matters. The final analogy is motivational rather than strictly operational, but it reinforces the usage rule without excessive length. Well-structured overall, with minimal waste.

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 simple three-parameter bug-reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and workflow, and the schema covers parameters. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves some practical context unstated, such as what happens after reporting and whether the agent must supply or track the id. Adequate but not fully 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%, so the parameters are already documented: id, item, and summary. The description reinforces that summary is the one-line statement of what is wrong, but it does not add new field-level meaning beyond the schema. This meets the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 opens with a specific action ('Report a bug') and names the exact resource (a bug record). It explicitly distinguishes itself from ddflow_bug_fixed by saying this tool is for reporting before fixing, while the sibling refuses to close without a regression test. An agent can clearly tell what this tool is for.

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 is directive about when to use it: 'the moment you find it, BEFORE fixing it.' It also explains the relationship with ddflow_bug_fixed, making it clear that bug_found precedes bug_fixed and is required for accountability. This is explicit usage guidance with a named alternative.

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