feedback_strategy

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

The description mentions the one-feedback-per-agent constraint, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important aspects like whether feedback is mutable, who can view it, or side effects. Lacking annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides only partial transparency.

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?

Extremely concise: two short sentences. No filler or redundancy. The most critical information is front-loaded.

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 description covers purpose and a key constraint, but lacks details on return values, feedback lifecycle, or how feedback is used. For a tool with no output schema, this leaves some gaps in completeness.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond schema parameter descriptions, so no extra value.

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: providing feedback (positive/negative/neutral) on strategies. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like propose_strategy or apply_strategy, which could cause confusion.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus other strategy-related tools. The only context is the anti-spam constraint, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use.

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