get_fixed_bugs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, response format, or behavior when no fixed bugs exist. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but this is not disclosed.

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, succinct sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple listing tool.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description lacks essential context for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not explain the filter parameter, when to choose this over similar tools, or what to expect in the output. The absence of this information makes it incomplete.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'filter' parameter at all. The agent receives no semantic guidance about how severity levels (critical, high, etc.) relate to the list, leaving the parameter's purpose unexplained.

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 retrieves a list of fixed bugs, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_open_bugs' by explicitly mentioning 'fixed' rather than 'open'.

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 such as 'get_open_bugs' or 'scan_project_bugs'. The description does not mention exclusions, alternatives, or any conditional context for use.

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