List tester feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond structured fields: the returned payload includes screenshot URLs and, critically, the feedback text is untrusted tester-authored data that should be treated as data rather than instructions. It omits pagination/limit behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then filtering, then the safety caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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?

With readOnlyHint set, no output schema, and five parameters, the description supplies the return shape (feedback plus screenshot URLs), the filter semantics, and the untrusted-input warning that an agent genuinely needs. The only gap is limit/pagination behavior, which is minor against the schema default.

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 only 20% (just 'project'), so the description must compensate, and it does for three of five parameters: the parenthetical maps to the kind enum (bug/works/suggestion), 'one build' maps to buildId, and 'open items' maps to status. Only limit (default 50, max 100) is left undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (feedback testers sent from install pages), enumerates the feedback kinds, and notes that screenshots come back as URLs. None of the sibling tools (builds, projects, config, login) overlap, so an agent can select this immediately.

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?

Mentions two narrowing conditions ('filter to one build or to open items'), which implies when the tool is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, no prerequisites, and no statement of what to do instead when neither filter matches. Usage is implied rather than specified.

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