list_bounties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (discover, returns) and lists the fields returned. However, it does not mention potential behaviors like pagination, handling of many results, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but not detailed.

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 sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: usage context, return format, and parameter/alternatives. No redundant words, front-loaded with purpose. Excellent conciseness.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs: purpose, return fields, parameter, and alternative tools. No gaps remain.

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% for the single parameter 'limit'. The description adds explicit default value (default 50) which is not in the schema description, enhancing understanding beyond the schema. It also clarifies that the parameter is optional.

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 'Use this when you need to discover available bounties for contribution or review bounty status', specifying a concrete verb (discover) and resource (bounties). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_bounty and create_bounty by mentioning their roles.

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 explicit usage context ('when you need to discover...') and suggests alternatives ('Use get_bounty to get full details on a specific bounty', 'See also: get_bounty, create_bounty'). It lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but the guidance is sufficient.

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