complaint

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it discloses that files (JSON and Markdown) are written locally and that 'no external issue is published', which is the key scope boundary. It does not state permissions, failure behavior, or whether files are overwritten, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and side effect, then the required fields, then enumerations. Slightly dense and it restates enum values already machine-readable in the schema, but every line carries actionable 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 13-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the definition covers required inputs, content expectations, enum vocabularies, and the local-only output boundary; the output schema covers return values. The missing piece is any note on the 'context' parameter or where files land.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate across 13 parameters, and it largely does: it names the two required fields and maps nearly every other parameter (tool, arguments, expected/actual, steps, design/vehicle/definition, suggestion, category, severity). Only 'context' is left unexplained, keeping it below 5.

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 ('Report') plus the resource ('an encountered problem or improvement request') and the side effect ('save local JSON and Markdown reports'). 'complaint' alone is ambiguous, and the description resolves it well; however it never names the create-vs-read distinction against siblings like list_complaints/get_complaint.

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?

Gives clear context for when to invoke: an encountered problem or an improvement request, with the expected contents (failing tool/arguments, expected vs actual, steps, suggestion). It stops short of any exclusion or explicit alternative, so it cannot reach 5.

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