Submit Strata bug report

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

Annotations already signal non-read-only behavior, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the external signing requirement, the exact payload returned when the signature is omitted, and the hex signature required for submission. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide, though it does not disclose possible side effects of submission.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a clear conditional. Every sentence adds necessary information 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?

The description covers the key two-phase interaction model and the role of the signature. There is no output schema, but the description implies what is returned in prepare mode ('the exact payload'). It does not explain submission outcomes or error cases, but for a simple 3-parameter tool this is largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the role of ownerWallet and authorizationSignature in the signing/submission flow, but it does not explain the 'message' parameter's content or expected format beyond the schema constraints. Partial compensation only.

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 and resource: 'Prepare or submit a bug report.' It also clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like strata_bugs by indicating this tool handles submission rather than just listing/viewing bugs. The two-mode framing makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides clear usage guidance for the two modes: omit authorizationSignature to prepare/sign, or provide the hex signature to submit. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the conditional flow is specific enough for an agent to know when to use each path.

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