Reflect On Feedback

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

The description is consistent with the 'readOnlyHint' annotation, indicating a read-only analysis. It adds value by specifying the output (proposed rule and recurrence info), going beyond the annotation to describe the analysis nature. No contradictions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output. Could be slightly expanded for completeness but remains concise.

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?

While the description states the output (rule and recurrence), it lacks detail on how the analysis works or what recurrence info entails. With no output schema, more context would improve completeness. However, it's adequate for a focused analysis tool given sibling context.

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% with clear parameter descriptions (conversationWindow, context, whatWentWrong, feedbackEventId). The description does not add significantly beyond the schema, but the schema itself is sufficient. 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 tool performs a post-mortem analysis on negative feedback and returns a proposed rule with recurrence info. It uses a specific verb ('run') and resource ('post-mortem analysis on negative feedback'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'capture_feedback' or 'feedback_stats'.

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 implies usage for analyzing negative feedback to generate rules, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'feedback_summary' or 'capture_feedback'. No exclusions or when-not-to-use context is given.

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