find_suspects

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it explains the trace-based RCA path, the diff-based path, and the exact return shape. It stops short of explicitly stating side effects or read-only behavior, but this is clearly an analytical/find operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage modes and return structure. Every line earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 complete enough for a moderate-complexity tool: it names the required repo, the two input modes, and the output shape. It could be stronger by explicitly contrasting with related siblings such as from_trace and by clarifying how base/head behave when omitted.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does for trace_text, base, and head by explaining the stack-trace flow and the base..head diff flow. The required repo parameter is left implicit and not explicitly described, which is the main gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find the commits most likely to have introduced a bug.' It also clarifies two distinct modes (trace_text vs diff base..head). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like from_trace, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The description gives clear conditional usage: pass trace_text for a stack trace/crash log, otherwise diff base..head. This tells the agent when to use each input path, though it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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