Log a bug/issue

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

Discloses that the log is appended to a file, high-volume memory, and NOT auto-loaded. Without annotations, it carries the full burden; it adds useful context about when to use and performance implications, though could mention more about mutation safety.

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 concise sentences front-loaded with the core action and clear usage guidance; every sentence adds value.

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?

Provides essential usage context and proactive behavior, but lacking parameter explanations and return value info; no output schema exists. Still adequate for the agent to use effectively.

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?

While schema coverage is 57%, the description adds no parameter details beyond 'structured bug/issue'. It does not explain fields like project, symptom, or status; the description could have compensated but didn't.

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?

Clearly states the tool appends a structured bug/issue to a file, distinguishing it from sibling tools that search or resolve issues. The verb 'log' and resource 'bug/issue' are specific.

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: 'Call this PROACTIVELY whenever you resolve (or get blocked by) a non-trivial bug — don't wait to be asked'; also instructs to skip trivial/transient issues and to inform the user in one line.

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