Report a gap or contribute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It describes the output (a link and steps) without mentioning side effects, implying a safe read-only operation. Could be more explicit about not modifying state, but is clear enough.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with no fluff. Each sentence adds value: first states trigger and output, second reinforces the value proposition.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately describes the return value and purpose. It covers the main use case of reporting gaps, though could mention whether the link is generated locally or requires an API 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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds little extra. It reinforces the purpose but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage 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 reports missing or misbehaving Hetzner capabilities and returns a prefilled GitHub issue link and pull request steps. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list or manipulate resources.

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?

It explicitly says 'When a Hetzner capability is missing or misbehaving', providing a clear trigger. No exclusions are given, but the context makes it obvious when to use.

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