report_bug

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: the daily per-tenant cap and that exceeding it returns an error. However, it does not describe what happens on successful submission, expected response shape, or side effects, leaving notable gaps.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds one crucial behavioral constraint. Every word contributes value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with four parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, this description provides the essential purpose and cap behavior but omits what the response looks like on success or failure. The schema fills in parameter details, so the description is adequate but not complete for an agent needing to interpret results.

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 already provides thorough descriptions for all four parameters, including enum meaning for category, suggested keys for context, and length constraints for title/body. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the cap context, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: filing a bug, feedback, or idea about LeadAce. It uses a specific verb ('File') and identifies the resource, making the primary intent unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'record_suggestion' tool, which may overlap in purpose.

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 implies when to use this tool (for bug, feedback, or idea submissions about LeadAce) and adds a key usage constraint (daily cap, error over cap). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives, leaving the usage context only implicit rather than fully specified.

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