Report a bug

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds beyond annotations: 'Free, no credits' clarifies cost, and 'Report a bug ... to the team' indicates it submits a report rather than performing a local action. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands logically into when-to-use, exclusions, and submission guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. It is informative without being verbose.

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 simple reporting tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what counts as a bug, when to use it, when not to, and what to include. The low complexity and clear annotations make this complete.

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% — all three parameters are described in the schema with details for summary, details, and severity (including enum meanings). The description reinforces what to include in 'details' but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. It meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'Report a bug in Hermoso to the team' — a specific verb, resource, and audience — then enumerates concrete examples of genuine misbehavior (tool errors, wrong/malformed results, broken renders, documented behavior mismatch). It explicitly differentiates from request_feature for missing capabilities, so an agent can immediately tell it apart from the sibling.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when something in Hermoso genuinely misbehaves') and when not to ('Do NOT use it for out-of-credits, a policy refusal, or a missing capability') and names the alternative (request_feature). This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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