cognition_feedback

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'adjust edge weights', implying a mutation, but lacks details on side effects, permissions, idempotency, or potential consequences. Essential behavioral traits are missing.

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 sentence, making it concise. However, it is overly terse and fails to include necessary details, reducing its effectiveness. It front-loads the action but sacrifices completeness.

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 4 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no behavioral context, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return values, side effects, or how the tool integrates with other cognition tools. The agent lacks sufficient information to use 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 0%, and the tool description provides no explanation for any of the 4 parameters. The agent cannot understand what edgeId, nodeId, comment, or outcome (beyond enum values) represent. This is a critical gap.

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 verb 'Submit' and the resource 'feedback', indicating the action. However, it lacks differentiation from sibling tools; while no other tool directly submits feedback, the phrase 'adjust edge weights' is jargon that may not be universally understood. The purpose is specific but not fully transparent.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when to avoid, or how it compares to sibling tools like cognition_query or confirm_rule. The agent must infer usage without explicit context.

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