Bug impact scan

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true, and description adds the method of ranking (by keyword overlap and shared product), giving insight beyond safety. Does not detail output format but is consistent with read-only nature.

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 efficiently pack purpose, method, and usage guidance. No wasted words, and the critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema and 4 parameters, the description covers input alternatives and the core action (ranking features). It lacks explicit output format details but the 'rank' implies a list or sorted result, which is adequate for selection.

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 coverage is only 25% (only ticket described). Description explains that either ticket or ad-hoc title/description can be passed, adding meaning beyond schema. However, the required 'project' parameter is not explained, and the relationship between title and description remains ambiguous.

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?

Description clearly states the tool rank features affected by a bug, using keyword overlap and shared product. This verb-resource pairing is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like log_bug or get_regressions.

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 says 'Use it when logging a bug to spot regressions and linkage candidates,' providing clear context. Does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the usage scenario is well-defined.

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