report_product_issue

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true. The description adds that it 'Auto-files a GitHub issue with system context', disclosing the primary side effect. This enriches the transparency beyond annotations by explaining the exact action and scope.

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?

Two sentences perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second provides usage guidance and automation detail. No superfluous words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what happens (GitHub issue with system context) and when to use it. The tool is simple with few parameters, so nothing is missing. It is complete for an agent to decide.

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 schema covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage). The description does not add new parameter details, but it reinforces the purpose of the tool. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Report' and the resource 'bug, suggestion, or complaint about ThumbGate'. It explicitly distinguishes from project feedback, and mentions auto-filing a GitHub issue. This is specific and helps differentiate from siblings like capture_feedback.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use when the user expresses frustration or requests a feature for the thumbgate tool.' It also states what it is not for ('not project feedback'), guiding the agent away from alternative feedback tools.

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