Fix context bundle

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds valuable behavioral context: 'No second LLM key needed' and clarifies the output structure. No contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the key purpose and is relatively concise. The first sentence is packed but clear. Could be slightly tighter, but overall well-structured.

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 output schema exists and annotations are rich, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, return values, and usage context. It differentiates from multiple siblings and answers likely agent questions.

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% with clear descriptions for reportId and project_id. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description starts with a specific verb 'Bundle' and resource 'everything to fix one bug', and explicitly distinguishes from siblings like triage_issue and suggest_fix. It clearly states the tool's purpose and scope.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before writing a fix' and provides alternatives: 'use triage_issue for a multi-report review packet, or suggest_fix for just the Stage-2 hint'. Also notes it's read-only.

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