bugs_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'List bugs' and repeats the parameter requirement, omitting details about pagination, ordering, result format, or any side effects. This is minimal.

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 short but includes 'Tag: Bugs' which is extraneous for an agent. It front-loads the purpose but wastes space on a tag. Could be more concise by omitting the tag.

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?

For a list tool with no output schema and two parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and filtering requirement. However, it lacks information on pagination, sorting, or response structure, which are common needs for list endpoints.

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 both parameters already documented with filter descriptions and the requirement note in the schema. The description reiterates this requirement but adds no new semantic information, so 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 'List bugs' which is a verb+resource pair, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bugs_get (single bug) or bugs_create (create). However, the 'Tag: Bugs' line adds no functional clarity.

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 explicitly states that at least one query parameter (projectId or folderId) is required, providing clear guidance on when the tool should be used. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the condition is clearly defined.

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