give_feedback_to_desktop_commander

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that a browser is launched and that usage metadata is automatically attached to the submission (tool_call_count, days_using, platform, client_id) — privacy-relevant behavior an agent could not infer from structured fields. This is exactly the added context the dimension rewards.

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 core purpose and the metadata disclosure are front-loaded and each sentence carries information. The trailing note about 'DC: ...' invocation phrasing is marginally useful for agent behavior but is the one element that reads as boilerplate rather than necessary content.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool whose side effect is launching an external browser, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it opens, that it takes no arguments, what data is transmitted, and that responses cannot be supplied. Nothing material 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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description reinforces the schema by stating 'No input parameters are required,' which matches the empty properties object with additionalProperties=false. There is no syntax or format to add.

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 and resource ('Open feedback form in browser to provide feedback about Desktop Commander') and is unmistakable against every sibling, none of which relate to feedback collection. It also draws a clear boundary by noting the tool does not accept or pre-fill survey responses.

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 usage context is clear and self-selecting: this is the tool to call when the user wants to give feedback. The description explicitly rules out one wrong expectation (that you can pass survey answers through this tool), but it names no alternatives or conditions for when not to call it, which keeps it below a 5.

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