feedback

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool is 'lightweight and safe', which reinforces safety but does not contradict annotations. No additional behavioral traits are needed, so this is adequate.

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 concise, with a front-loaded purpose, clear examples, and an 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary text. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, parameter semantics, and safety. Although the output schema exists and is not described, the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool 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?

The description fully explains both parameters: 'issue' (what happened, expected, suggestions) and 'tool_name' (which tool involved). Since the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description carries the full burden and does so effectively, adding clear meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to provide feedback for improving ask-another. It uses specific verbs ('share', 'call') and resources ('experience') and distinguishes itself from sibling research/model tools by being a feedback mechanism.

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 explicitly states when to call the tool ('whenever you're unsure...', 'receive confusing output', 'tool doesn't behave as expected') and that it is 'safe to call at any time'. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools, but the purpose is clear enough.

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