amber_send_feedback_to_developer

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses rate limiting (bucket 12, refill 1 per 5 min) and security constraints (never include passwords). It tells the agent to mention it to the user after sending. It does not describe error handling or asynchronous behavior, but overall is fairly transparent.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, then usage guidelines, security, and rate limit. Every sentence adds unique value without repetition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter constraints adequately. It lacks details about return values or confirmation, but the context is otherwise sufficient for effective tool use.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing a security warning applicable to all fields and clarifying that tool_context should be an amber_ tool name. This enhances understanding.

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 it sends structured feedback (bug report, feature request, or general) to Amber's developer. It uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('feedback to developer'), and distinguishes from siblings which handle memory/account operations.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to send feedback proactively (errors, unexpected behavior, user frustration) and instructs not to ask for permission. It also warns against including sensitive info. However, it does not explicitly rule out other inappropriate uses, though context implies appropriate usage.

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