report_tool_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the side effect of writing to .mcp/FEEDBACK.md, notes that the file is project-specific and gitignored, and explains idempotency by stating duplicate reports are skipped.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains the destination, usage triggers, and idempotency behavior, all in an efficient and easily scannable structure.

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 largely complete for a feedback-submission tool: it covers purpose, when to use, file destination, and idempotency. However, since there is no output schema, it could briefly mention what happens on success, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The tool description adds little parameter-level detail, but it does not need to because the schema fully covers field meanings.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report a bug, improvement, or feature request about any MCP tool in this server.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and scope, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_feedback or close_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 description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when a tool produces unexpected results, crashes, or when you need a new capability.' It provides clear triggering conditions, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with alternative feedback-related tools.

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