Report Feedback

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

Annotations already mark it as non-idempotent and open-world. The description adds no further behavioral detail (e.g., that it sends a one-way message, no confirmation). It does not contradict annotations, but it provides no extra disclosure beyond the verb.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero fluff. It states the action and recipients clearly, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

For a simple feedback tool with fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose. It could mention expected side effects or return behavior, but these are adequately implied by the tool's role and schema coverage.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific guidance beyond the schema, so it sits at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 uses a specific verb 'Report' with clear targets (bug, missing conversion, quality issue) and identifies the recipient team. It unambiguously distinguishes from all sibling tools, which are conversion/manipulation actions.

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 purpose implies when to use it (when encountering a bug or quality issue), and no sibling tool serves this function. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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