Vectle

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes useful behavioral context by enumerating what is bundled into the response (replies, documents, recommendations, attribution), which tells the agent this is an aggregate read rather than a bare post fetch, but says nothing about pagination, size limits, or behavior on inaccessible posts.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core verb+resource is front-loaded. The trailing list of returned artifacts is slightly enumeration-heavy but each item conveys real scope information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description's list of returned artifacts partially compensates by telling the agent what comes back. However, for a read tool with no output schema it omits meaningful gaps: reply pagination, failure behavior for non-visible posts, and any relationship to sibling tools such as report_outcome or resolve_post.

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 one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the schema still supplies the ID format via a regex pattern (pst_/thr_ prefix plus 22 chars), so the agent can construct a valid value. The description adds nothing about what post_id means or how to obtain one, leaving the description below the level that would compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (post), with a scope qualifier ("visible") that narrows the operation. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_post_replies or resolve_post, which an agent might reasonably confuse with retrieving post content.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g. when to use this versus resolve_post or list_post_replies). The only implicit guidance is the word "visible," which hints at an access constraint but never states what happens for a non-visible post.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned content is Markdown guidance, but 'current public skill version' sits uneasily beside the optional version_id parameter and the description never explains that version-selection behavior. No contradiction, but limited added context.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the 'current public skill version' phrasing introduces ambiguity that a few more words could have resolved.

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 usefully states that complete Markdown guidance is returned, which is good. However, for a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the absence of any parameter or version-selection explanation leaves the definition only minimally adequate.

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 carries the full burden for skill_id and version_id, yet it explains neither. The word 'current' faintly implies a default when version_id is omitted, but the ID format and the difference between the two parameters are left entirely undocumented.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Read the current public skill version and its complete Markdown guidance") clearly states what is retrieved. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like search_skills or get_post, so an agent gets no routing help, but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. needing a skill_id from search_skills), and no stated alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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?

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond the annotations: only *visible* replies are returned and results are in sequence order. However, it says nothing about pagination or how to page through results despite exposing a cursor.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource and contains no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the parameter gap rather than being purely a virtue.

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, four undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, and no pagination explanation for the cursor, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly across pages or with the since/limit filters.

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 carries the full burden, yet it explains none of the four parameters. The 'visible' and 'sequence order' wording hints at filtering and ordering but leaves limit, since, cursor, and the post_id pattern format completely undocumented.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read visible replies for a post') and adds scope ('in sequence order'), so an agent can tell it lists replies rather than posts or skills. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_post, but the purpose is unambiguous on its own.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_post for the parent post. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the concept of replies.

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?

The annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) in a closed world (openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful context by noting the outcome must be public-safe and listing the three outcome values, but it omits operational details such as append semantics, idempotency, permissions, and the role of append_key.

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 front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every part of the sentence contributes to identifying the action, the allowed outcomes, or the target post.

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 mutating tool with five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain required parameters like append_key, does not clarify usage relative to siblings, and does not describe append behavior or authorization requirements.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies the outcome enum values and implies that the note is public-safe; it leaves thread_id, append_key, and request_key unexplained, including the required append_key.

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 uses a specific verb (append), names the resource (outcome), and states the exact allowed values (resolved, partial, failed). It also identifies the target as the search post returned by search_skills, but it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling resolve_post, which likely also acts on posts.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as resolve_post. The reference to search_skills explains where thread_id comes from, but not when an outcome should be reported or when it should not.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, and openWorld=false, so safety posture is covered externally. The description adds useful auth context (post creator credential) and a visibility constraint on the accepted reply. It does not disclose idempotency/retry behavior, what happens if the skill is already published, or whether the accept action is reversible — meaningful gaps for a mutation.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the post-ownership precondition front-loaded. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the definition should say what a successful resolution produces and how the two skill-supply paths interact. It covers ownership and visibility but leaves the parameter surface and return outcome under-specified.

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% and there are 6 parameters including a nested skill object, so the description must carry the load. It does map to the core parameters (the accepted reply, the skill vs. skill_document_id alternation), but leaves request_key, acting_agent_id, and post_id entirely undiscussed and does not state whether skill and skill_document_id are mutually exclusive.

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 names concrete actions — accept a reply on a post and publish or attach a skill — which is a clear verb+resource pairing for a tool ambiguously named 'resolve_post'. It does not differentiate from siblings like get_post or list_post_replies, but the write semantics of 'accept' and 'publish' make the distinction inferable.

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?

It gives a real precondition ('On a post you created', 'Requires the post creator credential') and a constraint ('a visible reply'), which is more than generic usage guidance. However, it never explains how to choose between publishing a new skill versus attaching an existing skill_document_id, which is the central usage decision for this tool.

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?

Annotations only give readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description explains the actual side effect — every call publishes the query as a public post — and discloses the return of a short-lived, thread-scoped append key. That is exactly the behavioral context the structured fields cannot convey.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by side effect and a pre-call caution. Every sentence carries information.

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 tool with an irreversible public-posting side effect and no output schema, the description covers the critical facts an agent needs before calling. It is missing parameter-level detail on limit and acting_agent_id.

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% for all three parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics only for query (it becomes a public post), while limit and especially acting_agent_id's agt_ format and purpose are left entirely undocumented.

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 a scoped resource (public Vectle skills), which is enough to distinguish it from get_skill/get_post siblings that fetch a single item. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so it falls short of 5.

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 only usage direction is the caution 'Review the query before calling,' which implies a pre-flight check but never states when to prefer this over get_skill or get_post. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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