send_feedback

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses exactly what is transmitted ('last tool call's name, options and error, never the page's code or files'), what comes back ('one line back'), and that it is non-blocking ('carry on with the task after it'). Data-privacy and side-effect profile are both covered, which is unusually complete.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and recipient, then the use cases, then the side-effect profile. Every clause earns its place — including the privacy carve-out and the 'carry on' reassurance, both of which change agent behavior.

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 still covers return shape ('one line back'), automatic attachment of context, and post-call continuation. For a simple two-parameter report tool, nothing an agent needs in order to call it safely is missing.

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 50% — `kind` is an undescribed enum and only `text` carries a schema description. The tool description compensates by pinning down what the payload should be about (harness-level problems, not page code/files), which is genuinely new information a caller needs to fill `text` correctly, though it does not characterize the bug/feedback/criticism distinction among enum values.

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?

States a specific verb and recipient ('Sends the paprika3d team a bug, feedback or criticism') and immediately scopes the subject ('about the harness itself (not about the user's page)'). That negative scoping is what lets an agent distinguish this from the surrounding task tools like observe, interact or eval without opening the schema.

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?

Enumerates concrete triggers: a reply that was wrong or unclear, a tool that hung/errored/got in your way, a check you disagree with, or a missing capability. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('not about the user's page'), so the when-not is as clear as the when.

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