feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It adds the behavioral detail that reports are 'collected locally,' which informs the agent about data handling. However, it does not disclose whether the operation is persistent, what response to expect, or any side effects beyond collection.

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 compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action and includes a key detail (local collection) with minimal verbosity. The minor typo 'malong' does not warrant a reduction.

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 simple feedback tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and a local-collection detail, but it omits return behavior and leaves 'malong' unexplained. Given the simplicity, it should at least mention what happens after reporting. This is a clear gap.

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?

The input schema provides full descriptions for all four parameters (tool, issue, note, error_code), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter-specific 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: reporting issues/errors/ideas. The verb 'Report' and resource 'tool issues/errors/ideas' are specific, and no sibling tools serve a similar function. However, the term 'malong' is ambiguous and not defined, slightly reducing clarity.

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 use when encountering tool issues/errors/ideas, but does not explicitly state when-to-use vs alternatives. Since no sibling tools are similar, it's acceptable, but there is no guidance on prerequisites or what qualifies as feedback.

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