report_issue

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains parameters and return values but does not disclose behavioral traits like idempotency, safety, side effects (e.g., whether it mutates state or requires permissions). The return includes 'stored_in_file' and 'stored_in_log,' suggesting storage, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 well-structured with Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, some details (like default values) are repeated from the schema, and the description could be slightly shortened without losing clarity.

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 the complexity (9 parameters, output schema), the description covers all aspects: purpose, parameters, return values, and error case. It provides sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides detailed explanations for all 9 parameters, including enum values, defaults, and constraints (e.g., 'Capped at 2000 chars'), adding significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'File a structured bug report for later developer review,' which clearly states the verb and resource. The tool is distinct from its siblings (get_api_endpoint_schema, invoke_api_endpoint, list_api_endpoints), as it is for reporting issues, not exploring APIs.

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 implies usage for bug reporting but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context and siblings make it clear, but there is no explicit guidance on exclusions or conditions.

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