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

Annotations already mark this as non-read, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds context beyond annotations by explicitly instructing to include the conversation array with recent messages for reproduction, which is a key behavioral expectation for the tool's effective use.

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 highly concise, using two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides the critical usage detail, making it front-loaded and 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?

For a simple tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function and the necessary reproduction step. It does not explain the 'context' parameter, but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the presence of a default value in the schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explicitly mentions the 'conversation' parameter and its purpose ('recent messages for reproduction'), but does not clarify the 'context' parameter or the exact content of 'message' beyond the tool's general purpose. This is partial compensation.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Report') and distinguishes the resource types ('bug, missing feature, or send feedback'). It also explains the required context for reproduction, making it unambiguous when compared to unrelated siblings like 'authenticate' or 'marketplace'.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: whenever a bug, missing feature, or feedback needs to be reported. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios, but the action is obvious. The instruction to include the conversation array gives a specific usage guideline for effective reproduction.

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