report_issue

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it discloses the key behavioral trait an agent needs: issues are 'saved locally' for the maintainer, i.e. this files persistent feedback rather than acting on the server. It doesn't cover side effects like storage location or whether reporting is irreversible, but the local-save behavior is the most important 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?

Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded, zero filler. Nothing to trim.

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 feedback-reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and storage but omits return/confirmation behavior and how it differs from the 'notify' sibling. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and each of the 9 parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond naming the issue categories, which the schema already covers via enums.

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?

Explicit verb+resource ('Report ... issue with the MCP server') and enumerates the issue types it accepts (bug, feature request, other). It doesn't reference the sibling tool 'notify', but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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 implies when to use it (you have a bug or request for the MCP server), but offers no exclusions or routing relative to the sibling 'notify' tool. Implied usage only, no when-not guidance.

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