generate_bug_analysis_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'generate' without explaining what happens (e.g., returns a prompt string, whether it calls an LLM, or any side effects). The term 'assembled' is ambiguous and not elaborated.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the core purpose. However, it could have been slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so it doesn't reach the 'zero waste plus added value' level of a 5.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the description does not specify what the generated prompt looks like or what the caller should do with it. For a simple tool, this is still a notable gap that an agent would need to infer.

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%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description mentions technology_stack and severity, reinforcing the schema, but adds no extra meaning for the optional bug_context parameter.

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 a specific action ('Generate an assembled bug analysis prompt') and identifies the key inputs ('specified technology stacks and severity level'). While this distinguishes it from the sibling tools by name, it does not explicitly contrast with generate_codebase_analysis_prompt or generate_prd_prompt.

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 like generate_codebase_analysis_prompt or get_bug_analysis_template. The description only states what it does, not the appropriate context or exclusions.

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