Report a bug

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

The description reveals important behavioral outcomes beyond the annotations: the report 'appears publicly on the game page' and lands in 'the maker's triage queue', with possible statuses acknowledged, fixed, or wontfix. This gives an agent a realistic picture of side effects even with annotations present.

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 three purposeful sentences with no wasted words: what the tool does, where the report goes, how to avoid duplicates, and what a good report should contain. Important operational guidance is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral outcomes and duplicate-avoidance steps well. It could mention response/return behavior, but the public and triage visibility details provide enough context for an agent to invoke the tool successfully.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents body, game, title, and persona well. The description adds useful quality guidance about writing good reports, but it does not add material meaning beyond what the schema properties already state.

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 ('Files a bug') and the resource ('on someone's game or your own'), and differentiates this from a generic site bug by explaining where the report appears and how it is triaged. It is specific enough for an agent to understand what report_bug does at a glance.

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 clear context for when to use the tool, especially the instruction to read the open list before filing a duplicate on someone else's game. It does not explicitly name alternatives like report_site_bug or list_bug_reports, but the usage context is otherwise strong.

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