interactive_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool must be invoked iteratively, that feedback is used to adjust behavior, and that the agent should provide a summary and project directory. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool blocks execution while waiting for feedback, which is implied but not fully disclosed.

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 well-structured with numbered rules and front-loaded with a clear purpose. It is a bit longer than necessary, and rules 1 and 2 overlap in meaning ('during any process...' and 'all steps must repeatedly call this tool'), but each sentence contributes to the overall usage guidance.

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 description is sufficiently complete for a feedback tool: it explains when to call, what to include in arguments, and when to stop. However, it does not describe what happens on timeout, which is a parameter with a default of 3600 seconds but no behavioral explanation for the agent.

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 already covers all three parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining how summary and project_directory should be used in rule 5, which goes beyond the schema definitions by tying them to the agent's feedback loop.

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 tool's purpose: 'Interactive feedback collection tool for LLM agents.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing, and it is clearly distinct from the sibling tool get_system_info, which collects system information rather than user 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 USAGE RULES section provides explicit, prescriptive guidance: call this tool during any process, repeatedly, until the user explicitly ends. It also tells the agent to summarize work and provide the project directory. This is a clear when-to-use instruction, with a defined stopping condition.

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