aiworkhub_known_bug_scan

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

The description reinforces the readOnlyHint annotation and adds genuine behavioral context beyond it: results are 'static candidates' never reported as 'runtime-reproduced evidence,' and that truth boundary holds across both output formats. That is a valuable semantic guarantee. It stops short of disclosing bounds (how many paths, size limits) or what pattern set is used.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the READ-ONLY marker and the action, so the key constraint lands first. The second sentence is dense but each clause adds real meaning; only the line wrapping adds noise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. For a read-only, two-parameter scan fully covered by annotations, the only remaining gap is the exact meaning of 'bounded' — minor against a definition that already states the evidence-quality guarantee.

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 carries the burden, and it only partially compensates. It names the two output modes ('Native and SARIF') matching the output_format enum and hints at a limit via 'bounded changed paths,' but never explains what the bounding rule is or what form the path strings should take.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'scan bounded changed paths for known bug patterns.' An agent can tell this is a static pattern scan over a supplied path list rather than a runtime test or full quality gate. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like aiworkhub_quality_run_checks, but no sibling covers the same ground.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as quality_run_checks or contract_consistency_check, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The only contextual hint is 'changed paths,' which implies a diff-scoped workflow but leaves selection to inference.

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