Log bug

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds that a new ticket is created and returned, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, 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?

The description is a single sentence that immediately conveys the action and return value. No extraneous information; every word is meaningful.

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?

Despite having 12 parameters and no output schema, the description only covers the basic operation. It does not explain how parameters like 'priority' or 'labels' affect behavior, nor does it describe the structure of the returned ticket beyond the ID.

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 58% (7 of 12 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance. It misses the opportunity to clarify key parameters like 'title' or 'project', which are required but lack descriptions in the schema.

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 action ('Log a bug'), target ('board's buglist.md'), and return value ('new ticket (FBB-###)'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'add_feature' or 'create_project' by focusing on bug tracking.

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 implies usage for logging bugs but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_feature' or 'create_project'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites are given.

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