report_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says who receives the report but not what happens after submission, whether a ticket is created, who can see it, how contact_ok affects privacy, or whether a response is expected.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's recipient and broad purpose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, four parameters including a nested context object, and only half the schema documented, the description is too thin. It should explain submission behavior, privacy/contact implications, and parameter expectations.

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 50%; only category and contact_ok have short default descriptions, while context and description are undocumented beyond their titles. The description's examples hint at possible categories but do not explain the nested context object, the meaning of contact_ok, or what a good required description should contain.

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 action and recipient: telling the Kiln team about bugs, ideas, printer details, or questions. This distinguishes it from most operational sibling tools, though it does not explicitly contrast with troubleshooting or diagnostic 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?

The description lists concrete use cases (bug, idea, printer details, question), implying when to use it. However, it gives no when-not guidance or alternatives, which matters in a large sibling list containing many troubleshooting and support tools.

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