Report a bug in the site itself

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so they carry little behavioral context. The description adds meaningful traits: reports are private, only the reporter and site staff see them, and there is a rate limit of three per hour. It also sets expectations about what constitutes a useful report.

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 description is efficient and front-loaded: purpose, then sibling distinction, then privacy, then the pageUrl hint, then the rate-limit guidance. Each sentence contributes useful information and there is no fluff.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what counts as a site bug, when to use the sibling instead, what content to include, when pageUrl matters, privacy, and rate limiting. No critical context is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by instructing the agent to pass pageUrl when a specific page or endpoint is involved, and it reinforces the body's expected content. This is useful but not extensive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Files a bug') and clearly scopes the resource to 'the site itself', giving concrete examples like broken pages and wrong counts. It also explicitly contrasts with report_bug, so an agent can identify the correct tool without guessing.

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 states when to choose this tool ('when the thing that is broken is somebody's game' use report_bug instead) and gives positive context for the site-bug case. The examples plus the explicit alternative make the selection decision unambiguous.

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