Report a bug

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the action has no credit cost ('Free, no credits') and clarifies that it reports to the team rather than fixing the issue. The annotations already indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior, and the description does not contradict them.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: a clear opening statement, concrete use-case examples, explicit submission guidance, exclusions with the alternative, and a cost note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then narrows to conditions and constraints.

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 two required string parameters and one optional enum, the description covers when to use it, what to include, what not to include, and the cost implication. No output schema is needed for a submit-style tool, and the annotations plus schema fully cover the remaining semantics.

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%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description's guidance about including what you were trying to do, the exact tool call, and what came back largely paraphrases the existing 'details' parameter description, so it adds limited new semantic value. It also does not explain the summary or severity parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the action ('report a bug in Hermoso to the team') and gives a specific definition of what counts as a genuine bug: unexpected errors, wrong or malformed results, broken renders, or behavior that contradicts documentation. It also names its key sibling, request_feature, when describing what the tool is not for, helping an agent distinguish it from nearby capabilities.

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 tells agents when to use the tool ('when something in Hermoso genuinely misbehaves') and when NOT to use it ('out-of-credits, a policy refusal, or a missing capability'), pointing to request_feature as the alternative. This is exactly the level of routing guidance an agent needs.

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