Similar bugs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. The description adds value by revealing the algorithm (pgvector nearest-neighbour search), the relationship to search_reports, and the exact return format (Ranked { reports: [{ id, summary, similarity }] }). This provides behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then states the return format, then gives usage guidelines. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 has only 2 parameters (1 required), has an output schema (implied), and annotations cover safety and idempotence, the description is fully complete. It explains the algorithm, return format, and usage scenario, leaving no gaps for an AI agent.

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% and the description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for both parameters (query and limit). The schema descriptions are identical to what the description says. Therefore, the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool finds existing bugs similar to a component, page, or description using pgvector nearest-neighbour search, which is a specific verb+resource+method. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool search_reports by noting it is tuned for 'have we seen this before?' rather than general free-text search.

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 guidance: 'Use to dedupe before filing or group regressions; use search_reports for general free-text search.' This clearly states when to use this tool and when to use an alternative, leaving no ambiguity.

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