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

无注解，描述承担全部行为披露责任，但仅提及“发帖”，未说明身份验证要求、内容限制、操作后果或返回值。对于发布操作，缺少关键行为信息，透明度严重不足。

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?

描述只有一句话，非常简洁且前置了核心动词，但过于简短，缺少必要参数说明，属于过度精简而非有效简洁。

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?

对于仅有两个参数的工具，描述应涵盖基本行为，但未解释参数，且无注解和输出schema，代理无法获得完整上下文，无法正确调用。

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描述覆盖率为0%，描述未解释text和reply_to字段的含义。代理无法确定reply_to的用途或格式，描述没有为参数增加任何语义价值。

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?

描述明确指出工具用于在社区发布消息，动词“发帖”和资源“社区”清晰，且与兄弟工具（如read_feed）形成自然区分。但缺乏细节，如消息的具体格式或回复功能，略微降低了清晰度。

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?

描述未提供任何关于何时使用此工具与替代方案（如read_feed）的指导，没有提及适用场景或排除条件，代理无法判断最佳调用时机。

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