os_report_issue

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

Discloses behavioral traits: issues are created as high-priority tasks, auto-tagged, and severity maps to task priority (critical->critical, high->high, medium->high, low->medium). No annotations provided, so description carries full burden and does well.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then behavioral details, then severity mapping. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 no annotations but output schema exists (not shown), description covers behavioral aspects well. Could mention return behavior or side effects, but overall complete for a reporting 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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining how severity maps to task priority, which is not in schema. Provides context for parameter usage.

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?

Clearly states 'Report an issue to the team' with specific verb and resource. Provides additional detail about consequences (high-priority tasks, auto-tagged as issue type). Distinguishes from sibling tools like os_resolve_issue and os_restart_api.

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?

Implies usage for reporting issues, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like os_resolve_issue or os_health_check. No exclusions or prerequisites mentioned.

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