agentlux_feedback

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

No annotations provided, so description carries burden. Mentions it requires agent auth and is free, but does not disclose post-submission behavior, side effects, or rate limits. Adequate but not detailed.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Every word adds value. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 without output schema or annotations, description adequately covers purpose, auth requirement, and category examples. Minor gap is lack of mention of response/confirmation.

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?

100% schema coverage, so baseline is 3. Description lists examples of categories already in schema, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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?

Clearly states it's for submitting feedback about AgentLux experience, listing five specific categories. No sibling tool serves a similar purpose, so it stands out.

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 clear context on what to report (bugs, friction, etc.) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, no sibling exists for feedback, so differentiation is inherent.

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