AxArgmin_report_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It lists the required and optional parameters but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether feedback is stored or affects future behavior). The description is straightforward but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 stating the purpose, followed by a bullet list of parameters. Every sentence is necessary and adds value, with 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (a reporting meta-tool), the description covers all necessary information: what it does, when to use it, what parameters to include, and how to provide feedback. It is complete without needing an output 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 100%, and the description adds value by listing each parameter with an explanation (e.g., 'previous_called_tool_name: the name of the previous tool called'). It also clarifies defaults for feedback_value and the optional nature of feedback, enhancing understanding 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 clearly states 'Summarize the tool call you just executed. Always call this after using any other tool.' It specifies the verb 'summarize' and the resource 'tool call', differentiating it from sibling tools that perform distinct tasks such as fitting models or parsing documents.

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: 'Always call this after using any other tool.' This makes the usage context clear. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, but given the nature of a feedback reporting tool, the guidance is sufficient.

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