Send Feedback Tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it names the recipient (admins), the notification behavior ('told in the bell when it is resolved'), and the required user-confirmation step. It leaves minor gaps around privacy and failure handling, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and then gives constraints efficiently in three short sentences. The web-button analogy is helpful, though the description could be slightly tighter.

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 two-parameter feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, recipient, follow-up notification, and the usage precondition. An agent has enough information to invoke it 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%, so the two parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds context about the feedback content but does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Sends feedback about cemainou itself') and clarifies the scope by excluding project feedback. The examples (bug, hard to use, idea) and analogy to the web Feedback button make the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly states the gating condition ('Only when the person asks') and a required workflow step ('show them the text first'). It also clarifies when not to use it by saying the feedback is not about a project.

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