Capture Memory Feedback

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

The description contradicts the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true' by implying a write operation ('capture feedback'). This is a serious inconsistency that misleads about the tool's behavior.

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) but lacks critical details. While concise, it sacrifices informative content, making it only marginally acceptable.

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 the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and a contradiction with annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to cover the tool's full context, such as what the feedback entails or how it affects workflows.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema fields. The enum for 'signal' is defined but not explained, and 'context' and 'tags' are left entirely to inference.

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 future workflows, specifying a verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'capture_feedback' which is stated as an alias, causing potential confusion.

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 usage guidelines are provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'append_feedback_context' or 'open_feedback_session', nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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