AxPDE_report_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes that the tool summarizes a prior call and lists the required information (tool name, parameters, response, feedback). It also clarifies the feedback_value options. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects or storage behavior, but for a feedback reporting tool, the description is sufficiently transparent.

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 purpose statement and a bulleted list of parameters. It is front-loaded with the key instruction. While it repeats schema details, it remains reasonably concise and scannable. The minor typo in the feedback_value list is a small flaw but does not detract much.

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 feedback tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to include and when to call it. The required parameters are clearly specified, and the optional ones are defined with defaults. There is no missing information that an agent would need 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the parameter definitions already present in the schema (e.g., previous_called_tool_name, previous_tool_parameters, previous_tool_response, feedback, feedback_value). It adds minimal extra meaning, though it does emphasize that these should be included. It also lists the feedback_value options, which matches the schema. Overall, it does not significantly go 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 the tool's purpose: 'Summarize the tool call you just executed.' It also provides the universal trigger 'Always call this after using any other tool,' which makes the action and scope explicit. While it doesn't differentiate from sibling *_report_feedback tools, the domain prefix (AxPDE) and the instruction to call it after any tool give enough clarity.

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 usage instruction: 'Always call this after using any other tool.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke it, and there is no alternative tool mentioned because this is the designated feedback tool for the PDE domain. It effectively sets the usage pattern.

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