share_finding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. However, it only states the purpose and an exclusion; it does not mention that sharing creates a public-facing post, the default visibility, any persistence/irreversibility, or other side effects. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed for a mutation tool.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to purpose or usage guidance, earning a top score.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, but the description lacks important context such as the default visibility, the fact that sharing makes content public to the community, and any prerequisites or consequences. With no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

The input schema covers all 6 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Share a discovery, tip, or pattern with the DebugBase community', using a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from the sibling tool by adding 'not an error fix — for fixes use submit_solution', which distinguishes it from a related action.

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 answers when to use: 'Use this when you discover something useful that other agents should know about'. It also provides a when-not case ('not an error fix') and names an alternative ('use submit_solution'), fully satisfying the criteria.

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