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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's effects: marks job complete, awards XP and payout, rejects other pending submissions. It also notes the authentication requirement, providing clear behavioral transparency.

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 concise sentences front-load the core action and then provide key behavioral details. 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, effects, and auth requirement. It could mention idempotency or error conditions, but it remains sufficiently complete for typical 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?

The description does not add meaning beyond the input schema for the submissionId parameter. The schema already describes it as 'The submission ID to accept (from vibefix_list_submissions)'. The description focuses on the tool's overall purpose rather than parameter details.

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?

Clearly states the action: accept a winning submission for a bounty. Describes the outcome (marks job complete, awards XP and payout, rejects others), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibefix_submit_solution or vibefix_list_submissions.

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?

Explains the tool is for accepting a winning submission and mentions the authentication requirement (VIBEFIX_API_KEY on a customer account). This gives context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives.

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

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

Discloses that the owner reviews applications and grants access if approved. No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. Does not describe response behavior or any side effects, but basic flow is covered.

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?

Three concise sentences, front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Covers the core use case, distinguishes from public bounties, and mentions required API key. Missing output details, but given no output schema and simple operation, it is largely complete.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with good descriptions. Description adds minimal extra context (e.g., 'short intro message') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond 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?

Clearly states the action 'apply' and the resource 'private VibeFix bounty'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like submit_solution by noting it is only for private bounties.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for private bounties only, and that public ones can be submitted directly. Also mentions the required API key. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.

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

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

With no annotations, the description provides key behavioral details: it returns scores and issue lists, and includes a ready-made bounty pre-fill. It also states it's free and no API key required. However, it does not mention error handling or behavior for invalid URLs.

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, no wasted words. The first sentence states the primary action, the second details the outputs. Information is front-loaded and efficiently organized.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, what it returns, and prerequisites (public URL, no API key). The agent can correctly select and invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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?

The schema covers the 'url' parameter with 100% description. The tool description adds value by clarifying it accepts any public URL, providing an example format, and explaining what the output includes (scores, issues, bounty pre-fill).

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 runs a diagnostic scan on a public URL, listing specific categories (performance, accessibility, SEO, best practices) and outcomes (scores and issues with bounty pre-fill). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that handle bounties and submissions.

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 mentions it's free, no API key required, and for any public URL. It implies when to use (for diagnosing a URL) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. The context is clear enough for most scenarios.

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

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavior. It lists return fields but does not explicitly state the operation is read-only or disclose side effects, auth needs, 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?

One concise sentence with no redundant information; essential details are front-loaded.

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?

For a simple get-by-ID tool without output schema, the description adequately explains what is returned and the source of the ID, making it complete.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema description, meeting the baseline.

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 specifies the action 'Get full details' and the resource 'specific VibeFix bug bounty by ID', listing included fields, distinguishing it from list and post siblings.

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?

Indicates the ID comes from vibefix_list_bounties, implying usage after listing, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only browse operation, but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or what fields are returned. The lack of output schema further limits transparency.

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 concise sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and filter options. No unnecessary words or details.

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?

For a simple list tool with good parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and filter capabilities. It could mention the return structure or pagination (limit is in schema but not highlighted), but overall it's sufficient.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with all four parameters described in the schema. The description redundantly lists category, platform, and difficulty without adding new semantics or format details beyond 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 uses a specific verb 'browse' and resource 'open bug bounties', clearly indicating it lists bounties filtered by category, platform, or difficulty. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_bounty (singular) and my_bounties (user-specific).

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 browsing bounties with filters but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_bounty for details or my_bounties for personal ones. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations provided. Description mentions read-only operation implicitly and API key requirement, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or other behavioral traits.

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, no redundancy. Front-loaded purpose, then prerequisite and requirement. Efficient.

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?

Explains return value (developer info, fix descriptions) and prerequisite tool. No output schema, but description compensates. Lacks pagination details, but adequate for simple list 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 coverage is 100% with one param described. Description adds context that submissions include developer info and fix descriptions, but no additional param specifics beyond 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 tool lists submissions for a bounty with developer info and fix descriptions. It distinguishes from siblings like vibefix_my_submissions (own submissions) and vibefix_list_bounties.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite: use vibefix_my_bounties to find bounty IDs. Also mentions API key requirement. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but context is clear.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only listing operation but does not explicitly state safety, pagination, or other behaviors. The API key requirement is noted, but no side effects or limitations are 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?

The description is extremely concise—two short sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and a key requirement. No redundant information.

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?

For a simple zero-parameter list tool, the description provides adequate context: it lists what is returned and the prerequisite. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. It adds value by describing the output (approval status and job details), which is helpful even though schema coverage is trivially 100%.

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 lists the user's applications to private VibeFix bounties, including approval status and job details. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vibefix_list_bounties' and 'vibefix_my_bounties' by specifying 'your applications'.

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 mentions a prerequisite (VIBEFIX_API_KEY on a developer account) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vibefix_list_submissions' or 'vibefix_my_bounties'. The context is somewhat implied but not explicit.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool is read-only (lists) and requires an API key, but does not disclose potential limitations like rate limits or whether the data is real-time. Adequate but not exhaustive.

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 short sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the purpose. Every word adds value.

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?

For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and key output fields (status, submission counts). It lacks details on pagination or ordering but is mostly complete for its simplicity.

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 zero parameters, schema coverage is 100%, and the description does not need to add param info. The description adds value by stating the output includes status and submission counts.

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 lists bounties posted by the customer, including status and submission counts. It is distinct from siblings like 'vibefix_list_bounties' (likely all bounties) and 'vibefix_my_applications' (for freelancers).

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 a clear precondition (requires VIBEFIX_API_KEY on a customer account) and implies usage for the customer's own bounties. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly states it requires an API key and implies a read operation ('Get'). However, it does not explicitly state it is read-only, nor does it mention potential errors, rate limits, or side effects. The description adds value beyond the empty schema but could be more explicit.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, return fields, and a prerequisite. Every sentence is necessary and there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description specifies the return fields (XP, level, etc.), which is sufficient for a simple profile retrieval. It also includes the authentication requirement. Missing details like error handling or confirmation of read-only nature, but overall adequate for a tool with zero 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?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is effectively 100%. Per rubric guidelines, 0 parameters sets a baseline of 4. The description adds meaning by listing the return fields, which compensates for the lack of parameters.

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 retrieves the user's VibeFix developer profile with specific fields (XP, level, wallet, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vibefix_my_bounties or vibefix_my_submissions, which focus on other aspects of the user's data.

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 mentions the requirement for VIBEFIX_API_KEY, implying authentication context. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use vibefix_my_profile vs. vibefix_get_bounty). No when-not or exclusion criteria are given.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements (VIBEFIX_API_KEY) and indicates the operation is read-only ('List'). However, it does not detail potential side effects, rate limits, or format of output, though for a zero-parameter list tool, these omissions are minor.

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 extremely concise: one sentence covering purpose and return data, plus a separate clause for authentication. Every word adds value, with no redundancy. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: what the tool does, what it returns, and required authentication. It could mention potential pagination or error scenarios, but for a simple list operation, it is sufficiently complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (trivially). Per guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none to describe.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'your submitted solutions', specifying the data returned (acceptance status and linked job details). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vibefix_list_submissions (which lists all submissions) and vibefix_my_applications.

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 when the user wants to view their own submissions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., vibefix_list_submissions for all submissions) or mention exclusions. The 'Requires VIBEFIX_API_KEY' indicates an authentication requirement but not usage context.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: free bounties go live immediately, paid bounties return a checkout URL, and API key is required. This is a good level of transparency for a create action. It does not mention idempotency or duplicate handling, but the core behavioral differences are clearly stated.

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 three sentences: first sentence defines the purpose, second explains key behavioral split (free vs paid), third states a prerequisite. Every sentence adds value, no fluff. Front-loaded with the main action. Excellent structure.

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 core workflow and key difference between free and paid bounties. However, it does not describe the return value for free bounties (only mentions checkout URL for paid), nor does it address error handling or response format. Given the complexity (11 params, no output schema), more detail on expected response would improve completeness. Current coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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 coverage is 91% (high), so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides; for example, it repeats the condition for bountyUsd (0 for free) but adds no new context for other parameters like chipsStaked or stack. The description is sufficient but not additive.

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 that the tool posts a new bug bounty on VibeFix, with specific verb 'Post' and target resource 'bug bounty'. It distinguishes free vs paid bounties, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vibefix_apply_to_bounty or vibefix_submit_solution. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is missing.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: it explains the difference between free and paid bounties (immediate vs checkout URL) and the requirement of an API key. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools like vibefix_list_bounties for listing. Usage context is partially covered but lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (VIBEFIX_API_KEY) but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether submission overwrites previous, whether it's editable, or what happens after submission). The behavioral info is partial.

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 succinct sentences: first states purpose, second provides guidance. No fluff, every word earns its place.

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?

No output schema, so description should hint at return value (e.g., submission ID, success confirmation). It does not. Also fails to mention that the user can check their submission via vibefix_my_submissions or similar. For a create action, this is a significant gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by reinforcing that the description should be clear and the repo link is recommended but optional, echoing schema descriptions. No additional semantic depth beyond 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?

Clearly states the tool submits a fix for a VibeFix bounty, distinguishing from siblings like vibefix_accept_submission (accepting submissions) and vibefix_apply_to_bounty (applying to work). The verb 'submit' is specific and the resource 'fix for a VibeFix bounty' is 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?

Provides basic context: 'Include a clear description... and a link' and mentions requirement for VIBEFIX_API_KEY. However, no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, such as not to use if you haven't applied to the bounty, or that submission is for fixes only.

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