Feedback List

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. It discloses the returned data (link, answered question count, voice clips, transcription backlog, server status/port), but does not state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention permissions, side effects, or rate limits.

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 a single dense sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds information about scope or returned fields, though the line break and semicolon structure make it slightly awkward 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?

With an output schema present and only one optional parameter, the description provides enough context to call the tool: it explains the parameter's effect and what the listing includes. The main gap is the absence of an explicit read-only statement, which would help since there are no annotations.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the single optional 'project' parameter. The description partially compensates by explaining that providing a project restricts rounds to that project and omitting it returns every known round, but it does not clarify the expected format or value type for 'project'.

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 identifies the resource (feedback rounds of a project, or all known rounds) and what information each round includes, plus page-server status. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling tools like feedback_read or feedback_page, so it falls short of the top score.

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 implies usage by explaining the effect of omitting the project parameter (all rounds the page server knows). It gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus feedback_page, feedback_read, or other feedback siblings.

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