get_feedback

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses that a screenshot is returned as an image, that the brief explicitly reports when a screenshot was NOT captured, and that debug entries are timestamped relative to capture. It omits auth/permission requirements and any side-effect profile, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action ('Get one feedback pin as a complete fix brief') followed by a structured enumeration of brief contents. It is dense and long, but nearly every clause conveys concrete return-value information rather than filler.

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 must explain the return payload, and it does so thoroughly: location, search string, requested change, screenshot presence/absence, and debug state. For a two-parameter read tool this is largely complete; only the 'id' semantics and permission context are left unspecified.

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%: the 'detail' enum is already fully documented in the schema, and the description only adds that 'the brief says which profile it used.' The required 'id' parameter has no description in either the schema or the prose (no format, no pointer to the feedback pin), so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Get one feedback pin') and enumerates exactly what the returned fix brief contains – location fields, a search string, the requested change, screenshot, and debug state. This is far more specific than any sibling (list_feedback, update_feedback_status, reply_to_feedback), so an agent can distinguish it without opening a 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?

The closing line 'Call this before changing any code' gives a clear when-to-use directive anchored to the agent's workflow. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions (e.g. list_feedback for enumeration), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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