Get feedback item

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating the full content (description, repro steps, console lines, network entries, links, linked change, comment trail) and advises reading it before a fix. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose with a detailed list of contents, a brief args line, and a final usage directive. Every sentence earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediate value.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and a description that explains purpose, contents, and usage, the description is fully complete for a GET tool. It tells the agent exactly what to expect and how to use it, leaving no significant 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 the description repeats the two parameters (id, response_format) with brief format notes (fb_..., markdown|json). The schema already provides examples and defaults, so the description adds minimal additional semantic value beyond reinforcing the id format. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full 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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('one feedback item'), and enumerates the full context returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like loopback_list_feedback (which lists items) and loopback_get_stats (which returns stats). It clearly communicates the tool's scope and uniqueness.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Read this before starting a fix' and states it contains everything captured at report time. This clearly signals when to use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. It gives strong situational guidance without directly comparing to siblings.

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