Report an issue

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=true, which the description is consistent with (nothing server-side is mutated; a zip is generated for download). Beyond that, it discloses the two facts an agent would otherwise get wrong: the response is a URL that must be fetched with the same Authorization header, and admin/hosted-telemetry access restrictions apply. That is real behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 return value and the auth step are front-loaded, which is the right priority, and every sentence carries information (URL handling, admin scope, hosted restriction). The opening sentence stacks a parenthetical and a subordinate clause, making it denser than necessary, but there is no filler.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent cannot infer: the return object shape and the required follow-up GET with an auth header. It also closes the permission gap on `instance` and `description`-only callers. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further on the highest-risk parameter: it explains what `instance` is for (unfinished work, failed jobs, logs across every account) and when that scope is appropriate, adding the queue/disk/machine diagnosis rationale the schema lacks. The remaining eight parameters are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at full coverage.

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 states exactly what the tool produces: a download link for an issue-report zip, identified as the same file the in-app 'Report an issue' action saves. It also names the return shape { url, filename }, so an agent knows this is a diagnostics-packaging tool rather than a generic export; no sibling tool in the list does anything comparable.

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 gives concrete selection guidance for the key fork: set instance true only for queue, disk or machine problems that are not just one project, as opposed to a project-scoped report. It also flags the precondition that non-admins on hosted instances with telemetry cannot download the zip. What's missing is an explicit trigger phrase for the base case (e.g. 'use when a user reports a bug'), though that is strongly implied.

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