codna_report_bug

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

Annotations carry only generic flags (readOnly=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the behavioral burden — and it delivers: auth prerequisites, the GitHub-token-dependent auto-filing path with a pre-filled URL fallback, the redaction guarantee ('no secret values'), and consistency with the CLI ('same shape of issue codna report does'). No contradiction with readOnlyHint=false, since filing a report is a write.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, sibling boundary, prerequisites, one labeled line per parameter, and return behavior. The core purpose is front-loaded and the parameter block is scannable; the only minor blemish is the repeated 'free' in the license note.

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?

Complete for a 4-parameter mutation tool: it covers selection (purpose and sibling routing), invocation (parameter semantics), prerequisites (login and GitHub token), and fallback behavior, and it even describes the return value (issue URL vs pre-filled URL) despite an output schema already existing.

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 fully compensates. It adds meaning to all four parameters: a worked example for title, guidance on body detail, an explicit enumeration of valid product values ('algenta, codna, telys, sqai, accounts, docs') that the schema lacks (no enums defined), and a privacy/redaction note for include_diagnostics.

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 opening line states a specific verb and resource — 'File a report to thyn-ai/feedback' — and identifies the tool as the public front door for the four products. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling: 'It only files the issue — codna_fix is the one that can open a PR with the fix.'

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 says when to use the tool (to file a report/issue), names the alternative for a different goal (codna_fix for a PR), and lists prerequisites: the one-time codna login device authorization and the GitHub token required for auto-filing, including the offline/no-token fallback to a pre-filled URL.

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