search_bugfixes

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully discloses behavior: it is read-only with no side effects, returns ranked chunks with specific fields, and prompts a follow-up action. This meets the high bar for 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 description is well-organized with sections (purpose, usage, Args, Returns) and every sentence adds value. No redundancy; it is appropriately concise for the information conveyed.

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 tool's complexity (3 params, simple return schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, return format, and follow-up actions. No gaps identified.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to all three parameters: query is 'Description of the current problem or error message', top_k has a default, and project is optional. This compensates fully for the schema gap.

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 'Search only bugfix summaries for similar past problems', providing a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool search_docs by noting its focused 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 guidance is given: prefer this over search_docs when debugging, and use search_docs for broader queries. Also instructs to call write_bugfix_summary when no matches are found.

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