File engine feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses auto-attached environment/log context, conditional use of `gh issue create`, the fallback to a local markdown file plus prefilled New Issue URL, the guarantee of no other network call, and the dry-run preview behavior. This is exceptional behavioral disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, equivalent, auto-attach behavior, fallback path, network guarantee, usage trigger, skip condition, and dry-run mention. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured so an agent can quickly parse the decision-relevant facts.

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 an output schema exists, return-value documentation is already handled. The description covers when to use, what it does, how it behaves under failure/missing tooling, what gets auto-attached, and what the parameters mean in practice. Nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke it is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by clarifying that environment/log context is appended automatically and should not be duplicated in `body`, and by explaining that `dryRun` previews without filing. The `dir` parameter is also marked as recommended. This lifts it above baseline.

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 specific verb ('File') and a clear resource (a GitHub issue on the aidemo engine repo), and even positions it as the in-band equivalent of `aidemo feedback`. It is immediately distinguishable from all sibling tools, none of which involve filing feedback.

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 when to call ('whenever something felt broken, surprised, or needed a workaround') and when to skip ('if the session was clean'). It also contrasts with the CLI equivalent and explains the fallback behavior when `gh` is unavailable, giving an agent clear decision criteria.

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