report_a_problem

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant behavioral context: it states that the report carries version, platform, active policy, and excludes Skilljar ids and credential values, and that user-provided text is reproduced verbatim. This goes beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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 concise and well-structured. The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and behavioral details. Each sentence adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 (one parameter, non-destructive, read-only), the description fully covers when to use it, what it does, and what the output contains and excludes. The output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. Nothing essential is missing.

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 does: 'Put what you actually observed in `what_happened`; that text is reproduced verbatim.' This gives the parameter a clear semantic role and behavior, which the bare schema lacks.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Assemble a bug report about this server for the user to file.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like check_access or list_courses, which serve different purposes. The action is concrete and unambiguous.

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?

Explicit when-to-use conditions are given: 'Call this when a tool is missing, a result contradicts its own description, or an error makes no sense - and when the user asks how to report something.' This tells the agent precisely when to invoke it, leaving no ambiguity.

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