task_feedback

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

The description discloses key behaviors: adjusting a coordination variable μ and automatically persisting the prototype library. However, with no annotations, it fails to mention potential side effects like disk writes, required permissions, or whether success/failure is final.

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 sentence, which is concise, but the structure is dense and could be split for clarity. It front-loades the main purpose but includes multiple actions in one clause.

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?

The tool performs three actions (report, adjust, persist) with no output schema and no parameter descriptions. The description omits important context: what 'μ' is, what 'prototype library' refers to, and how success/failure are reported.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the parameters sessionId or success. An agent would need external documentation to understand their formats or valid 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?

The description specifies the action (report success/failure), the resource (task outcome), and additional effects (adjust μ, persist prototypes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like report_outcome by including these extra steps, though the distinction could be clearer.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like report_outcome or dump_prototypes. The phrase 'after the entire task ends' implies context but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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