scan_qa_bugs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions scanning for 'recent QA bug reports' but doesn't specify what 'recent' means (though the parameter covers this), the output format (e.g., list, summary, raw messages), or any side effects like rate limits or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, but the bilingual repetition ('버그 리포트 스캔') is redundant and doesn't add clarity. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no wasted sentences, though the redundancy slightly detracts from optimal 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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., bug summaries, messages, IDs), how results are structured, or any error conditions. For a scanning tool that likely outputs data, this lack of context makes it inadequate for an agent to use effectively without guesswork.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'days_back' fully documented in the schema (type, range, default, description in Korean). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how 'days_back' relates to 'recent' or provide usage examples. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 states the tool scans a specific channel (#axr-qa) for QA bug reports, which provides a clear verb (scan) and resource (channel). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bug_detail' or 'list_items'—it's vague about whether this returns summaries, full reports, or just counts. The bilingual phrasing adds minor confusion but doesn't fundamentally obscure the purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., channel access), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_bug_detail' (for single bugs) or 'list_items' (possibly general listing). The description implies a scanning action but offers no context for selection among similar tools.

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