codesafe_bug_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a significant quirk: 'The platform ignores the line range and returns the whole file, so we slice the requested [begin_line, end_line] window client-side with line numbers.' This goes beyond the obvious and tells the agent about unexpected platform behavior and how the tool compensates.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose and concise in explaining the necessary behavioral quirk. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words or redundancy.

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 an output schema, the tool lacks annotations and schema descriptions, so the description is the sole source of context. It covers the line range semantics and a key quirk, but omits usage differentiation and does not fully define all parameters. The description is adequate for a simple fetch but incomplete for a tool with four required, undocumented parameters.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It clarifies the semantics of begin_line and end_line (1-based, inclusive, and the slicing behavior), but it does not explain task_id or bug_id in detail. The phrase 'for the file behind a bug' implies bug_id is the bug identifier, but task_id's role is left ambiguous. Partial compensation only.

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's function: 'Fetch a range of source lines (1-based, inclusive) for the file behind a bug.' It uses a specific verb ('fetch') and resource ('source lines'), making it distinct from siblings like codesafe_bug_summary or codesafe_bug_detail. The 1-based inclusive range is explicitly defined, leaving no ambiguity about the core operation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (when you need source lines for a bug's file), but it offers no explicit guidance on alternatives or exclusions. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like codesafe_bug_detail, nor does it state 'use this instead of X when you need code.' The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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