report_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'then go on' faintly signals a non-blocking, no-confirmation call, but it says nothing about whether the report persists, requires any permissions, or produces a response. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single economical sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing 'then go on' is slightly cryptic but compact rather than verbose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage across 3 parameters, the description would need to explain field intent and the effect of logging. It instead covers only the 'kind' values, leaving an agent unable to fill 'title'/'details' confidently or know what happens after the call.

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. It supplies the accepted values for 'kind' (bug, scomodo, sbagliato, manca, lento), which the schema does not, but leaves 'title', 'details', and 'tool' entirely undocumented in both places.

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 verb 'Log' plus the object 'what is broken/clumsy/missing' states a clear purpose, and no sibling tool competes with it (all siblings are image-editing operations). The parenthetical 'kind' list also hints at the issue taxonomy, though the mixed Italian/English terms are not explained.

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?

'then go on' implies this is a fire-and-forget action that does not interrupt the workflow, which is the only usage context given. There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives to choose between, so usage is only implied.

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