find_possible_bugs

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It lists detected issues but does not disclose whether the tool modifies state, performance implications, or side effects. The 'requires load_project' hint is helpful but insufficient for a read-only analysis tool.

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 concise with usage examples and a bulleted list of detections. It is well-structured and front-loaded. Slight redundancy in the usage line could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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?

Given the complexity of bug detection and lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview. It misses details on output format and runtime behavior, but covers the main purpose and prerequisites. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the schema itself covers parameter semantics adequately. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 finds bugs and code quality issues, with specific detection categories (null pointer risks, resource leaks, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on bug patterns rather than general analysis or refactoring.

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 includes a prerequisite (load_project) and usage examples, but does not explain when to use this tool versus alteratives like get_diagnostics or analyze_file. No explicit exclusions or context for selection among siblings.

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