reflect_on_feedback

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint true, and the description adds that the tool returns a proposed rule and recurrence info. There is no contradiction. The description doesn't disclose potential side effects, but the annotation covers safety.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and output. No unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, the description partially covers the return (proposed rule and recurrence info) but lacks details on structure. Given good annotations and full parameter descriptions, it is mostly 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter (conversationWindow, context, whatWentWrong, feedbackEventId). The description adds no further semantic value beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('run a post-mortem analysis') and identifies a clear resource ('negative feedback'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'capture_feedback' or 'diagnose_failure' by highlighting it's an analysis tool with a proposed rule and recurrence info.

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 use for negative feedback post-mortems, providing some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or suggest alternatives like 'diagnose_failure' or 'feedback_stats'.

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