log_retrieval_feedback

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

Discloses that omitted fields cannot be reset to null and the environment dependency. However, no annotations exist, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It lacks details on side effects, idempotency, and return value (though output schema may cover return).

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, field behavior, environment requirement. No wasted words.

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 an output schema exists (presumably documenting return values), the description covers purpose, field semantics, update behavior, and environment requirement. Missing broader context like typical usage workflow or interpretation of scores, but mostly complete for a feedback logging tool.

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 description must add meaning. It lists the three optional fields but does not explain valid values, ranges, or formats for user_feedback_score or required_requery. The query_id format is not specified. Only minimal semantic help.

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?

Clearly states the tool scores/annotates a prior kb_search result by query_id. Mentions retrieval telemetry context, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_retrieval_telemetry which only retrieve data. Slight jargon ('issue #5') reduces clarity slightly.

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?

Explains what can be supplied (feedback score, requery, notes) and that omitted fields are left unchanged. Also warns that the tool has no effect unless LORE_HARD_NEGATIVE_MINING=true on PostgreSQL backend. Does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives.

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