report_bug

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the key side-effect fact that 'nothing is posted automatically' and the returned artifact is a link for user review, plus a data-safety caution about API keys and customer data. It does not cover auth/permission requirements, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then usage, then the behavioral caveats. Every sentence earns its place and there is no repetition of schema content.

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 link-generating tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts an agent needs: what it produces, that submission is not automatic, and how to use it. Nothing material is missing given full 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters (title, what_happened, steps, expected, error_output) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Create a pre-filled GitHub bug report link') and scopes it to gadget-mcp itself rather than the user's Gadget app. This clearly separates it from every sibling, which are all data/query tools.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use when a gadget-mcp tool misbehaves or the user asks to report a bug.' It also pre-empts a likely mis-use by clarifying that it is not for the user's own Gadget app, leaving nothing to inference.

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