previewapk_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavior: the report is 'read and tallied by the team that builds it' and that one call suffices with any subset of fields. However it omits whether the submission persists, whether a response is returned, or whether a session is required.

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?

Core purpose and the field semantics are front-loaded, but the motivational framing ('you are one of the few who actually use it', 'the wishes of working agents are the roadmap') is rhetorical padding that doesn't help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 6-param, optional-all feedback tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it covers purpose, most fields, and timing. Gaps are the unexplained 'device' parameter and the absence of any return/confirmation behavior.

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 only 17% (just the rating field), so the description must compensate. It does: it defines broke, worked, wish and workaround with concrete meanings, covering 4 of the 6 parameters. Only 'device' is left unexplained, and rating is covered by the schema.

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+resource ('File a field report about THIS tool') and enumerates the report's dimensions (broke/worked/wish/workaround). It is clearly distinct from the device-control siblings like previewapk_tap or previewapk_screenshot. Minor ambiguity in 'THIS tool' (the feedback tool vs. the whole previewapk server), but the intent is recoverable.

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 says when to file ('before you stop the session, while the details are fresh') and clarifies the calling pattern ('One call, any subset of fields'). No alternatives exist among siblings, so no exclusion is needed, but it doesn't state any condition under which you should NOT file.

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