create_bug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create a tracked bug reference' without mentioning side effects, permissions, error cases, or return value. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's effects.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, but lacks parameter information and behavioral context.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the created bug reference looks like, what the output contains, or any constraints. A more complete description would address these gaps.

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?

The description does not mention or explain any of the two parameters (bugid, title). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but fails to do so. The agent gets no help understanding what values to provide.

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 verb ('Create') and the resource ('tracked bug reference'). However, 'tracked bug reference' is somewhat vague compared to simply 'bug', but it distinguishes the tool from listing bugs. The name 'create_bug' reinforces 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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the sibling tools list does not include any other bug creation tool, so usage is implied. The description lacks context such as prerequisites or scenarios.

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