predict_bugs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false; description adds caching behavior (1-hour, refresh=true), git requirement, methodology disclosure, and the nature of scores (heuristic with calibration results). No contradictions.

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 somewhat long but packed with useful information and front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence contributes value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

For a parameter-heavy tool with 4 params, no output schema, and complex behavior (caching, calibration, multiple signals), the description covers return structure, caching, git dependency, methodology, and limitations comprehensively.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds default values (limit 50, min_score 0) and clarifies refresh usage, but does not provide significant additional meaning beyond what the schema already offers.

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 ranks files by a multi-signal heuristic for bug-risk triage, distinguishing it from sibling 'get_risk_hotspots' which is mentioned as an alternative for a narrower use case.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('prioritize where to look first') and when not to ('not to certify a file as buggy') and provides an alternative tool for a subset scenario (get_risk_hotspots). Also notes the heuristic nature with calibration data.

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