report_friction

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

The description discloses key traits: it is anonymous, content-free, and is a signal (likely telemetry). However, it is truncated and does not mention what happens after sending (e.g., return value, logging, or user impact). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and missing the conclusion leaves some ambiguity.

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 visible portion is a single, run-on sentence listing conditions, and it is clearly cut off mid-word. While it is not unnecessarily verbose, the truncation and awkward listing make it less structured than an ideal description. It earns a middle score due to its brevity but loses points for incompleteness.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description gives necessary trigger conditions and signals that it is anonymous and content-free. However, the truncation means it lacks a conclusion (e.g., what the agent should expect afterward). With no output schema, the description should clarify the tool's effects, and it does not fully do so.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is inherently complete (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 tool sends an anonymous, content-free signal when an LMCP tool fails or returns nothing useful. It uses a specific verb ('send') and resource ('signal') with trigger conditions, making the purpose clear. It doesn't fully distinguish from sibling 'report_problem', but the 'content-free signal' wording gives it a distinct identity.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'when an LMCP tool fails, returns nothing useful, the user seems frustrated...' This provides clear context for invocation. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the trigger conditions are specific enough for an agent to decide correctly.

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