codesafe_bug_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that IDs are omitted by default and that include_ids=true yields a bounded sample, revealing default behavior and an option. It could mention id_limit's role, but the core non-obvious behavior (ID omission) is disclosed.

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, each serving a purpose: first states the action and use-case, second lists return fields and key parameters. No wasted words, front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not detail return structure. It covers purpose, usage, and one key behavioral option. The 'bounded sample' phrase is slightly vague but does not undermine completeness for an aggregation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains include_ids ('set include_ids=true to include a bounded sample') but leaves id_limit to inference from 'bounded sample'. task_id is self-evident, but id_limit could be misinterpreted without explicit linkage. 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 starts with a specific verb 'Aggregate' and identifies the resource 'defects by rule (from bugType)', clearly differentiating from sibling list/detail tools. It also states the intended use case ('Use this to pick a rule to audit'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit guidance is given with 'Use this to pick a rule to audit', telling the agent when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools, but the use-case focus and mention of omitted IDs imply when this is appropriate versus, say, listing raw bug details.

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