report_friction

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it usefully discloses that the report is anonymous, which is real behavioral context an agent would otherwise lack. It does not say what data is transmitted (logs, arguments, transcripts) or whether submission is rate-limited or one-shot, and the truncation cuts off the disclosure.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and efficient, with the important detail (anonymous) placed early. It is, however, visibly truncated with a trailing ellipsis, leaving the definition structurally incomplete.

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 zero-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description needs to cover payload content and side effects, and it covers only anonymity and rough triggers. Given the many sibling reporting tools, the omission of routing guidance leaves a meaningful gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies the payload is implicit rather than caller-supplied, though it never states how the failure context is captured.

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 names a specific verb (sends a signal) and a specific audience (the LMCP team), plus concrete trigger conditions. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as report_problem, submit_qa_report, or submit_diagnostics, and the text is truncated mid-sentence.

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 gives partial usage criteria — when an LMCP tool fails, returns nothing useful, or cannot do something — which is implied when-to-use guidance. But it offers no exclusions and no routing to the obvious alternatives (report_problem, request_feature), so an agent cannot tell which reporting tool to pick.

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