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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint: true and destructiveHint: false, so the description need not repeat safety. It adds context about including conversation for reproduction, which is useful. It doesn't discuss side effects, but annotations cover most.

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, every word earns its place. It is concise and front-loaded with the primary 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, but without output schema or schema coverage, the description must fully explain behavior and parameters. It fails to describe the 'context' parameter and does not indicate what happens after reporting. Given the lack of structured information, it is incomplete.

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 explain parameters. It mentions 'message' and 'conversation' but not 'context'. It says to include conversation, but does not explain the format or purpose of 'context'. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.

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 reports bugs, missing features, or feedback. It is specific enough to distinguish from siblings like marketplace or show_version, though it could benefit from naming specific alternatives.

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 says to include the conversation array for reproduction, implying when to use it (for bug reports) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with other tools. Guidance is minimal but present.

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