Apixstar Reddit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the 100-post cap, 20 default, per-10-posts billing, and that failed/empty calls are free. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and whether pagination is stable, so it is helpful but incomplete for a zero-annotation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then result volume, then cost model. No filler, and each sentence adds decision-relevant information (source mode, size cap, billing behavior).

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 seven-parameter, zero-required listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers volume and cost but leaves auth, rate limits, and pagination behavior unaddressed. It is adequate but not complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters, including defaults and formats like 'without the u/ prefix'. The description repeats the 20/100 limits but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List posts') and clarifies the two source modes (subreddit or user), so an agent knows what it returns. It does not name or distinguish itself from the siblings reddit_search or reddit_read, so routing among the trio still requires inference.

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 when to use it (listing a feed for a community or user) and the schema notes that username and community are alternatives to each other. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over reddit_search or reddit_read, and no prerequisites are stated.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses genuinely useful context: a 200-comment cap, one-request billing, and free failed calls. It is silent on authentication requirements, rate limits, and pagination, so it is helpful but incomplete for a mutation-free read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding, and the capabilities are front-loaded before the billing details. Every sentence carries distinct information an agent would otherwise lack.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must do more than it does: with zero required parameters, an agent needs explicit guidance that exactly one of postId/commentId/username should be supplied, and it never states that. Return shape is also only partially implied (200 comments on a post), leaving the comment/profile outputs unspecified.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with prefixes and the 50 default. The description's 'up to 200 comments' restates the schema's maximum and its mode list only loosely maps to parameters, adding little beyond the structured data. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and enumerates the three resources it can return: a post with comments, a single comment, or a user profile. That enumeration lets an agent distinguish it from reddit_feed and reddit_search without opening the schema, though it never names those siblings.

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 three modes are listed, implying which parameter (postId, commentId, username) selects each, but the mapping is never made explicit and no alternative tools are named. There is no when-not-to-use guidance, which matters here because reddit_feed and reddit_search could plausibly overlap.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the result cap (100), the default page size (20), the billing model (per 10 results), and that failed calls and empty pages are free. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and what the returned result fields look like, but the cost/limit disclosure is genuinely useful context beyond the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then limits then cost. Every sentence earns its place, especially the billing note which materially affects how an agent should size limit.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately covers result count and default page size. It is nearly complete for a search tool, with the only gap being the meaning of the sort and timeRange enum options.

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 57%, and the description adds a real detail not in the schema: limit defaults to 20. It also clarifies that 'community' scopes to one subreddit. However, sort and timeRange have no descriptions in either place, and cursor/includeComments semantics are left to 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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Reddit posts) plus scope (site-wide or one subreddit). It is clear enough to distinguish from reddit_feed and reddit_read by implication, but never names or contrasts them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope phrase 'across Reddit or inside one subreddit,' which tells the agent community is optional. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the sibling feed/read tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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