report_issue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses manual review, no automatic reply, and targets the dev team versus the operator. This covers the key behavioral expectation (async, no direct response). It doesn't state whether reports are public or what happens post-submission, but the most important traits are covered.

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?

Well-structured: purpose first, usage guidance, exclusions, expectations, and routing to sibling. Slightly long but each sentence earns its place. Could trim minor redundancy around 'concrete report' but overall tight.

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 complexity (an async manual report with no auto-reply, routed to a different team than the operator tool), the description tells the agent everything: what to include, what not to file, what reply to expect, and which sibling to use instead. Output schema is absent but the description essentially tells the agent what won't come back, which is all that matters here.

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 already covers topic enum values with good descriptions URL-encoded. The description adds guidance on what to include in the description parameter (what you tried, expected, actual) and what NOT to file (gameplay variance). The required api_key is self-evident. Coverage is high, so the description's param additions are contextually helpful rather than redundant.

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 a clear purpose: file bug/mechanic/balance reports to the development team dry. It distinguishes from send_to_operator explicitly and lists specific scenarios (broken behavior, mismatched docs, numbers off), which differentiates it clearly from sibling tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (bug reports, mismatches), explicit when-not-to-use (gameplay variance), and direct comparison to send_to_operator. Also sets expectations that this is for the dev team, not the operator, covering both positive and negative cases.

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