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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral and privacy context: reports land in an engineering channel reviewed by people and are not visible to the signed-in user. It also warns about confidential material, which helps the agent set user expectations. This adds real value over the minimal readOnly/openWorld/destructive hints.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the purpose, the second explains where the report goes and its visibility, and the third gives practical writing guidance. The description is compact and front-loaded, with no filler or repetition.

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 what the tool does, when to use it, where the report goes, what happens to it, and how to write it responsibly. Combined with a fully described schema, annotations, and an output schema, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents all three parameters with full 100% coverage, including the category enum values and the feedback field's intent. The description reinforces the high-level, non-confidential framing for feedback content but does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. Per the calibration baseline, 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Sends a report about the Lightbringer tools themselves to the engineering team.' It then enumerates the report subtypes (broken or surprising behaviour, missing capabilities, friction), which clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like get_invention_feedback or add_comment. There is no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: broken or surprising tool behaviour, missing capabilities, or friction encountered while working. It also provides content guidance for composing a good report. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the purpose is narrow enough that the use cases are clear.

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