Report a bug

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the write/external/non-idempotent profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new risk-relevant context — 'Moves no funds' — which is important in a toolset where 'write' calls usually mean on-chain value movement, reassuring the agent this side effect is non-financial.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the action and followed by the trigger and minimal required content. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description says nothing about what a successful call returns (ticket id, confirmation, whether a reply arrives via contact), which is the one thing an agent might want to relay back. Otherwise the definition is complete for a 4-parameter, 2-required 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 only 25% (contact only), so the description must compensate, and it does: it prescribes a 'short title', spells out the description content (what you did / expected / saw), and tells the caller to put error text or tx signature in context. Only 'contact' is unexplained, but the schema's own description ('email or X handle for a reply') covers that gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Send a bug report to the DFM team'), which no sibling tool duplicates in a toolset otherwise dominated by wallets, vaults and swaps. An agent can identify this as the sole support/escalation path without inspecting the schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('Use when something in DFM fails') plus the required content for a usable report (title, did/expected/saw, error text or tx signature). No alternative sibling exists for this purpose, so no when-not clause is needed.

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