Report a bug

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

With no annotations this description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the report is sent to the maintainer as a GitHub issue, the user must be told, reporter identity is optional, and on failure a prefilled issue link is returned. It omits auth/rate-limit or duplicate-suppression 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?

Six sentences, each carrying a distinct instruction: purpose, trigger conditions, content requirements, privacy constraints, user notification, and failure fallback. Front-loaded with the primary action and 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?

For a reporting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: reason to call it, what to supply, privacy limits, and the handling of the failure path (prefilled link). Nothing essential 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by emphasizing which content matters most for reproducibility ('Quote the exact tool call and error text ... and say what you expected instead'), but it does not map that guidance to specific field names.

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 and resource ('Reports a bug in Audionaut to the maintainer as a GitHub issue'), and the sibling set makes the distinction clear versus request_feature (feature requests) and the mutation tools. An agent can immediately tell what this does.

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?

Explicitly enumerates the triggering conditions ('an error that should not happen, a wrong or inconsistent result, a crash, or a project left in a bad state') and gives negative guidance ('Never include the audio itself, and keep file paths to what is needed'). That is when-to-use plus when-not-to-use in one place.

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