interactive_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals key behavioral traits: the tool must be called repeatedly, waits for user feedback with a timeout, and requires the agent to adjust based on feedback. It also instructs to provide the project directory for user awareness. However, it does not specify what happens when the timeout expires or the exact output format, though an output schema exists.

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 well-structured with a heading and numbered rules, but it contains redundancy: rules 1 and 2 both mandate calling the tool frequently, and rule 3 repeats the need to call again after feedback. It could be more concise while retaining the same 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 tool with three simple parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It thoroughly explains when and how to use the tool, what to include, and termination conditions. Minor gaps include lack of detail on timeout expiry behavior, but overall it provides sufficient context 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all three parameters (summary, timeout, project_directory) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning by explicitly stating that project_directory should be provided so the user knows what was done, but it does not enrich the semantics of summary or timeout beyond their schema descriptions.

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 tool as an interactive feedback collection tool for LLM agents, with a specific purpose of soliciting and adjusting based on user feedback. It distinguishes from the sibling tool get_system_info by focusing on feedback collection rather than system information.

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 provides explicit 'USAGE RULES' with detailed directives: when to call (during any process, after receiving feedback), when to stop (when user says 'end' or 'no more interaction needed'), and what to include (summary and project_directory). This is exceptional guidance that leaves little ambiguity for the agent.

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