capture_memory_feedback

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

The description claims the tool 'captures' feedback, implying a write operation, but annotations include readOnlyHint: true. This is a direct contradiction, and no additional behavioral context is provided.

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 very short (one sentence plus alias). While concise, it sacrifices crucial details, making it under-informative.

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?

With 3 parameters, no output schema, and a contradiction, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to cover return values, parameter expectations, or behavioral implications.

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 0%, and the description adds no information about parameters. It does not explain the meaning of 'signal', 'context', or 'tags', leaving the agent without guidance.

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 tool captures success/failure feedback to harden workflows, and provides an alias for identification. It effectively distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying its role in feedback capture.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append_feedback_context' or 'feedback_stats'. The alias hint is minimal and does not clarify selection criteria.

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