list_bugs

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. For a list tool, it likely is safe, but the description fails to confirm this.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words. Extremely concise and easy to parse.

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?

The description is minimal. While output schema exists to explain return values, the description lacks context about what 'tracked bugs referenced by jobs' means, e.g., whether they are system-wide or job-specific. Adequate but could be improved.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully covered (empty). With 0 parameters, baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, but it also does not add any value beyond the schema. Still, it meets the baseline.

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 states verb 'List' and resource 'tracked bugs referenced by jobs.' It clearly indicates what the tool does and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_bug (creation) and list_jobs (jobs). However, it could be more specific about the scope of bugs.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_bug or other list tools. No context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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