submit_feedback

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

The description discloses that the tool opens a browser window, which is a non-destructive, client-side action. Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not contradict; the description adds context about automatic version inclusion and that it opens a pre-filled issue, going beyond annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The most critical information (opens GitHub issue, auto-includes versions) is front-loaded. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it includes automatically, and how to use the parameters. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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%, and the schema already explains both parameters. The tool description adds minor value by stating that the title is optional and that the description should include steps to reproduce, but this largely mirrors the schema. The mention of auto-included versions is helpful context not in 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 opens a pre-filled GitHub issue for mail-mcp in the default browser, distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on email operations. It specifies the repository and automatic inclusion of system and app versions.

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 for submitting feedback. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the unique purpose among siblings makes it clear. No exclusions are provided.

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