List bug reports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the tool is known to be safe and non-mutating. The description adds the default ordering behavior ('open reports first') and notes that status changes are visible to the reporter (via update_bug_status). However, it doesn't disclose pagination or error behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description adds moderate extra context, warranting a 3.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what the tool does and default ordering; the second gives a usage tip; the third explains the pairing workflow. No filler or redundancy. The structure is efficient and 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 simple list tool with documented parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but lacks an explicit statement of what the response contains (e.g., fields like title, description, status). It also doesn't mention pagination, though the schema covers perPage. Given the tool's simplicity, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent that might need to know the response shape.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are documented. The description adds a hint that status filtering is useful for backlog work, which gives a use-case context to the status parameter. It does not add syntax or format details beyond the schema. Given full schema coverage, a baseline 3 is appropriate, with slight credit for the status-filter context.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'bug reports', and adds context: 'The bug queue for your game, open reports first.' This distinguishes it from other list tools like list_changelog or list_comments, and even from the sibling update_bug_status which mutates status. The resource and scope are unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to filter by status ('when you are working through a backlog') and directly pairs with update_bug_status, explaining the workflow (fix, ship, mark fixed). It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the pairing and context make the intended usage clear. Slight deduction for no mention of alternatives beyond the paired tool.

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