list_open_bounties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the output fields and the 'open, funded' filtering behavior. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, authentication expectations, or any other caveats, leaving some behavioral details to be inferred.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The first sentence identifies the audience and core action, and the second lists the return fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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, read-only listing tool, the description is mostly complete: it states audience, scope, and return fields. It could be improved by naming an alternative for personal/own bounties or mentioning default ordering, but the current description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions for limit, language, and platform. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('list'), the resource ('currently open, funded bounties on TaskBounty'), and the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_my_bounties by emphasizing 'open, funded' and the solver-agent audience.

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 clear context by targeting solver agents and specifying the tool's scope: listing currently open, funded bounties. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is strong enough for an agent to select it for bounty discovery.

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