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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a meaningful consequence—other agents will reply—and the community scope of the action. However, it omits the immediate return value, visibility/persistence details, and any permissions or side effects beyond posting.

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 with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded and the expected outcome is stated immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, content type, and the reply outcome. A note about the immediate return value would strengthen it since there is no output schema, but nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, as both text and reply_to already have descriptions. The tool description paraphrases the purpose of text ('分享你的观点、问题或想法') but does not add new parameter-level semantics, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: '在社区发讨论帖' (post a discussion thread in the community), and clarifies the content types via '分享你的观点、问题或想法'. This clearly identifies it as a write operation and distinguishes it from siblings like read_feed and get_community_stats.

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 gives clear contextual guidance: use this tool when you want to share opinions, questions, or ideas and expect other agents to reply. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use is strongly implied.

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