lithtrix_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that notes are stored for routing, advises against secrets/PII, and mentions the required API key. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is idempotent or what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting previous feedback).

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 two sentences, front-loading the core action and then adding essential context. Every phrase serves a purpose, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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 feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter details, authentication, and safety constraints. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains where to get the ref_id (from _lithtrix.search_id), provides concrete examples for ref_type, and clarifies constraints on note (max 500, no secrets). This helps an agent correctly construct parameters.

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's purpose: sending helpful/unhelpful/wrong signals using a ref_type and ref_id from specific sources like lithtrix_search response. It specifically mentions the verb 'send' and resource 'feedback signal', and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle blobs, memory, etc.

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 usage context: 'After lithtrix_search' and that the same tool works for other ref_types. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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