submitFeedback

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

Annotations are all false, so description carries burden. It discloses that feedback is low-friction and read by developers. No contradiction with annotations. Could add more on data handling, but adequate.

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?

Description is appropriately sized (about 60 words), front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds value, though could be slightly more compact.

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 that output schema exists (not shown but acknowledged), description need not cover return values. It covers when to use, required fields, and behavior. Lacks mention of expected response time or confidentiality, but overall complete.

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 100%, so parameter descriptions are already in schema. Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond clarifying that 'goal' is required and other fields optional. Baseline score 3.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: submitting feedback when stuck or when behavior is unexpected. It uses specific verbs and resources (submit feedback) and distinguishes from sibling tools that are data retrieval-oriented.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (stuck, unexpected response, missing info) and notes that a 'rationale' field is not required. Provides low-friction encouragement, making usage guidelines very clear.

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