report_problem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a side effect by saying 'Sends', but it does not explain the mechanism, required input, or consequences of the action. There is no mention of authentication, rate limits, or outcomes, leaving the agent without sufficient behavioral understanding.

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 consists of a single sentence that cuts off mid-thought ('...'), making it incomplete and poorly structured. While brief, the truncation undermines conciseness, and the content is under-specified rather than efficiently complete.

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?

The tool has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only covers the core action and object, omitting how to invoke it, what the user needs to provide, and what the outcome looks like. For a zero-parameter tool, the description is surprisingly incomplete, and overlap with 'request_feature' is unaddressed.

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 input schema has zero properties, so schema coverage is 100%, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description doesn't address how the report content is supplied, but it also doesn't mislead; given the absence of parameters, this is acceptable.

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 a problem report, feature request, or integration request to the LMCP team', identifying the action and recipient. However, the sentence is truncated at '— for when a user wants to...', and it doesn't distinguish from the sibling tool 'request_feature', which likely overlaps in purpose.

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 phrase '— for when a user wants to...' begins to provide usage context but is incomplete, leaving the actual conditions ambiguous. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, such as when to use 'request_feature' instead, providing very little guidance.

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