codesafe_bug_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states what the tool returns (rule definition, dataflow trace, location, audit state). It is an honest read-oriented description, though it does not mention potential errors or access requirements. No annotation contradiction.

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 with a front-loaded verb phrase, followed by a colon and a clear enumerated list of contents. Every element earns its place, with no extra 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately summarizes the returned content categories. However, it omits usage context and parameter semantics. For a retrieval tool, it is fairly complete, but the missing parameter guidance lowers it from a top score.

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% and the description does not explain the two parameters (task_id and bug_id) or their relationship. The description's mention of 'defect detail' implies bug_id identifies the defect, but task_id is unaddressed. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb and resource: 'Get full defect detail'. It enumerates specific components (rule definition, taint trace, exact location, audit state), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like codesafe_bug_summary (summary) and codesafe_bug_code (code-only).

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 this tool is used for obtaining detailed defect information, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives. It lacks exclusions or comparison with sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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