AxModelFitter_report_feedback

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description discloses that this is a reporting/feedback tool (not a primary action tool), and it specifies the required fields. However, it doesn't disclose what happens after feedback is submitted (e.g., whether it affects model training, whether it's stored, or whether it returns a confirmation). For a feedback-reporting tool, this is a moderate gap, but the core behavior—collecting and reporting feedback—is clear.

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 well-structured with a clear opening directive, followed by a bulleted list of fields. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters. The only minor issue is the formatting inconsistency in the feedback_value enum list (missing closing quote: [positive", "negative", "neutral"]), which is a small blemish but doesn't significantly harm clarity.

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 feedback-reporting tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: when to call it, what fields to include, and what the feedback_value options are. It doesn't explain the return value or downstream effects, but for a reporting tool this is less critical. The description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly after any other 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of each field in context (e.g., 'previous_called_tool_name: the name of the previous tool called'), which reinforces the schema. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides—it essentially restates the schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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: to summarize the tool call just executed, and explicitly says to always call it after using any other tool. It lists the exact fields to include, making the tool's function unambiguous and distinct from siblings like AxPDE_report_feedback or AxKnowledgeBase_report_feedback, which are domain-specific variants of the same feedback pattern.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Always call this after using any other tool.' This is a clear, unambiguous usage directive. It also implicitly distinguishes it from the domain-specific report_feedback siblings by being the generic version, though it doesn't name alternatives explicitly. The 'always' directive is strong enough to guide an agent's tool selection.

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