codna_triage

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it requires a one-time 'codna login' device authorization, is 'fully offline thereafter,' and produces '0 LLM tokens,' clarifying the tool's resource and connectivity profile. No contradiction exists between the description and the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by sibling contrast, auth prerequisite, parameters, and output summary. Every segment earns its place; there is no filler or repetitive restating of schema fields.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, sibling alternatives, login requirement, offline behavior, input meanings, and return shape. The optional output schema covers return details, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 bears the full burden, and it largely succeeds: repo is explained as 'a local path or a git URL (default: current directory),' and issue as 'optional description of what you're looking for.' The repo semantics are strong; the issue semantics are functional but somewhat terse, so a small gap remains in explaining what constitutes a useful issue input.

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 states a specific activity and resource: 'Understand a repository and locate the code relevant to an issue,' with a concrete output ('suspect files + the context-reduction'). It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by labeling codna_fix as 'plans/acts on one bug' and codna_recall as 'retrieves stored code memory,' while positioning triage as the 'zero-token map + suspect-file list you run first.' This distinguishes the tool clearly.

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 gives clear usage context: triage is 'the... list you run first,' and codna_fix and codna_recall are named with their differing roles, so an agent can select this tool before acting. It also flags the one-time login prerequisite. It does not explicitly state when not to use triage or mention codna_report_bug/codna_secure, so it falls just short of fully explicit when/when-not guidance.

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