List ONES Requirement Bugs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint true. Description adds that listing is done 'when explicitly requested,' but does not provide further behavioral context such as authorization requirements or rate limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance, no wasted words.

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?

Has output schema so return values are covered. However, missing details on pagination, ordering, or what happens if no bugs exist. The optional team_id parameter is not addressed.

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?

Input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), and the description does not explain what task_id or team_id represent, nor their expected formats or optionality. The tool's purpose mentions 'by task id' but lacks detail on parameter semantics.

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 lists bugs under a requirement by task id and distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_requirement_bugs_by_ref by specifying when to use each.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (when starting from a task ID) and when to prefer the sibling tool (when starting from requirement number or URL).

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