codesafe_list_bugs

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the server ignores level/ruleCode filtering, so filters are applied client-side to a single page, possibly returning fewer than page_size results. This is beyond what the schema or name conveys. However, it does not mention permissions, safety, or return structure, which would be expected without annotations.

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 concise: a single line overview followed by a focused NOTE. It front-loads the core action and then delivers critical caveat and alternative usage in two sentences. No wasted words.

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 description covers the main behavioral caveat, points to alternatives, and provides missing context about filtering. Although it omits some parameter details, the output schema is present and the tool is a straightforward paginated list, so the overall context is sufficient for effective use.

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 clarifies that level and rule_code are filters (and explains their client-side limitation), and it mentions 'single page' and 'page_size' which relate to pagination. However, it does not explain task_id, page_index, or their roles, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 opens with 'Page through defect instances,' which clearly specifies the action (paging) and resource (defect instances). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by noting the filtering limitation and recommending alternatives for complete filtered sets.

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 explicit guidance: 'For a complete filtered set, use codesafe_bug_summary + codesafe_audit_by_rule.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and names specific alternatives, which is exactly what usage guidelines should do.

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