predict_bugs

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

Disclosures beyond annotations: caching for 1 hour with refresh option, requires git, read-only, includes _methodology disclosure, multi-signal scoring, result envelope details. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose. Each sentence adds value: scoring details, result envelope, caching, usage tip, requirement, read-only. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Covers all aspects: purpose, scoring mechanism, output format, caching, usage context, requirement. No output schema given, but description explains output structure thoroughly (predictions array with fields).

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 100% with default values. Description adds context about caching (refresh forces recomputation) and clarifies that limit defaults to 50, min_score defaults to 0. Provides additional meaning beyond schema.

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?

States verb+resource: 'Predict which files are most likely to contain bugs.' Explicitly distinguishes from sibling get_risk_hotspots by saying 'For complexity+churn hotspots only use get_risk_hotspots instead.'

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?

Provides clear when-to-use: 'Use for proactive bug hunting.' Also states when-not-to-use and names alternative: 'For complexity+churn hotspots only use get_risk_hotspots instead.'

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