Submit feedback to the Sheepit team

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

With no annotations, the description carries full weight. It discloses the return value (feedback id and createdAt) and explains that the MCP auto-stamps source/version metadata. It doesn't mention any side effects or permissions, but for a simple feedback tool, this is adequate.

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 a single paragraph of about 5 sentences. It is well-structured, front-loading purpose, then usage, then return details. While slightly verbose, every sentence adds value, and it is easy to scan.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, when (and how) to use, return value, and metadata handling. It fully equips 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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema. For 'type', it provides explicit mappings for each enum value (e.g., 'bug = something is broken'). For 'message', it advises quoting user words, adding usage nuance.

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's purpose: 'File a bug report, feature request, or general note for the Sheepit team.' It specifies a clear action (submit) on a resource (feedback) and differentiates from sibling tools, none of which are feedback-related.

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 detailed guidance on when to invoke: proactively when user expresses frustration, after a confusing error, or when hitting a gap. It explicitly instructs to always confirm with the user and quote their words, establishing a clear usage protocol.

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