report_bug

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that replies arrive in the user's FLUF inbox (async behavior) and that account identity is attached automatically. Could mention if permissions are needed or if it creates a record, but sufficient.

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?

Four sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides useful guidance.

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 4-param tool with no output schema, the description covers input behavior (identity attachment) and output behavior (replies in inbox). Sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. Description adds context: 'context' parameter is elaborated with examples (URLs, product IDs, error messages). Also clarifies that identity is not a parameter. Adds value beyond 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 action: 'Raise a bug with FLUF support on the user's behalf.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools (list_products, get_orders, etc.) which are unrelated to bug reporting.

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?

Explicitly says when to use: 'when the user describes a problem with FLUF that you can't resolve yourself.' It also advises not to ask for account identity. Missing explicit alternatives, but siblings are not relevant alternatives.

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