Superpowers.social

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that comments are included in the response, which is a small behavioral addition. However, it does not disclose other traits like authentication needs, rate limits, or the structure of 'detailed content'. Given the annotation coverage, this is acceptable but not exceptional.

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 that communicates purpose and scope without any filler. It is optimally concise while still being informative.

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 should explain what the agent will receive. It only says 'detailed content... with comments', which is vague about the specific fields (e.g., title, author, score, comment structure). The description is minimally sufficient but lacks detail for a tool that returns a complex payload. The presence of annotations reduces the burden, but the return format remains underspecified.

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%, with each parameter (post_id, subreddit, comment_limit) having a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it merely references the resource. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('a specific Reddit post') and adds a distinguishing scope ('with comments'). This separates it from sibling tools like reddit-get-posts (plural) and reddit-search, making the purpose 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?

The description implies use for a single post by ID but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or when to choose reddit-search or reddit-get-posts. The guidance is only implied through the word 'specific'.

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 cover readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context—no mention of default sorting, time filtering, text_only mode, or response shape—so it contributes nothing beyond the structured annotations.

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 zero wasted words. It is easy to parse, but it is so terse that it essentially restates the title, which keeps it from being outstanding.

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 read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain return shape or how to choose this over reddit-search, but the schema and annotations compensate for most needs, leaving it at the minimum viable level.

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%; all four parameters have meaningful descriptions, including the detailed text_only note referencing reddit-get-post. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 for high coverage 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?

The description uses a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('posts from a subreddit'), which separates it from user-specific tools like reddit-get-user-posts and from Twitter tools. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from reddit-get-post or reddit-search, so it doesn't fully earn a 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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus any alternative. It does not mention reddit-search for queries, reddit-get-post for individual posts, or any exclusions. The only hint appears in the text_only parameter schema, not in the description itself.

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 description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already declare (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). It simply restates the function without disclosing pagination, return format, or any potential edge cases.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point. No wasted words, well-structured for an AI agent to parse.

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 read-only tool with a well-documented schema and safety annotations, the description is minimally complete. It could mention sorting or count behavior, but the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make the one-liner sufficient.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It adds no extra detail, but the baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('comments submitted by a specific Reddit user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like reddit-get-user-posts and reddit-get-post. It is specific and actionable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention contexts or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose statement alone.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as output shape, pagination behavior, or API quirks. It is not contradictory, but it contributes no value beyond the annotations.

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 efficient sentence that states the core operation without any fluff. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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 read-only listing tool with a rich schema and complete annotations, the description is mostly complete. It lacks an explicit note about return format or pagination, but the schema's text_only description and parameter defaults cover the key details an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 parameters clearly. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond confirming the resource is 'posts submitted by a specific Reddit user.' Baseline 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 clear verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('posts'), and a clear scope ('submitted by a specific Reddit user'). It is unambiguous, though it does not actively differentiate itself from the sibling reddit-get-posts or reddit-search tools.

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 tool description itself gives no explicit when-to-use instructions or exclusions. However, the text_only parameter description does provide practical guidance, including a recommendation to use reddit-get-post for a full post pass, which partially compensates for the lack of tool-level guidance.

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 annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the obvious purpose. It does not mention default sorting, result shape, pagination, or rate limits; the only substantive behavioral detail (text_only mode) lives in the schema, not the tool description.

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 concise sentence that conveys the core purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded for a search tool.

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?

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description is terse but the schema fills in parameter semantics. It does not outline the default return structure or search scope, though the text_only parameter implies the full result contains fields like author, subreddit, date, URL, and body preview.

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 baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning, but each parameter already has a clear schema description, including defaults and the detailed text_only behavior.

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 'Search Reddit for posts matching a query' names a specific action and resource, clearly indicating a search over posts. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like reddit-get-post or reddit-get-user-posts, so it stops short of a 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 main description gives no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the text_only parameter description implies a workflow ('Use for a cheap first pass to pick posts worth fetching with reddit-get-post'), offering implied usage context without explicit exclusions.

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 the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds little beyond the purpose; it does not disclose return format, pagination, or behavior around the count parameter. However, since annotations cover the safety profile, the description is minimally adequate but lacks deeper behavioral 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?

The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately conveys the tool's function. There is no redundant information or filler. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate but does not explain what a returned 'news item' looks like or how the category filter behaves. Given the lack of output schema, a bit more detail about return values would improve completeness.

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 documents both parameters (count and category) with full descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Get trending news from X/Twitter.' It uses a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('X/Twitter'), and a scope ('trending news'). While this distinguishes it from sibling tools like twitter-search or twitter-read, it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls short of a perfect 5 score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as twitter-search or twitter-read. The description simply states what it does, without providing context on preferred use cases or exclusions. This is a clear gap.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, rate limits, or authentication needs, so it provides minimal added value beyond the annotations.

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 concise sentence with the action and resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 read-only tool with only two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. The absence of an output schema is not a major gap, though a brief note about return shape could have made it slightly more 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 fully documents both parameters. The description merely repeats that tweet can be a URL or ID, adding no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Read') with an explicit resource ('a single tweet') and input method ('by URL or ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like twitter-thread, twitter-user-tweets, and twitter-search.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for reading a single tweet, implying when it should be used for one-off lookups. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add extra context. It adds 'token-optimized results with engagement metrics', which gives a useful hint about output style, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, or what 'token-optimized' concretely means.

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 filler. It states the action first, then adds a useful output characteristic. Every word 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 simple read-only search tool, the description provides the core purpose and a hint at return contents. However, there is no output schema and the description does not specify return structure, sorting, or pagination behavior beyond what the cursor parameter implies, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 parameters clearly, including extensive guidance on text_only. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema carries the burden, the 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 clearly states the action (search), the resource (X/Twitter tweets), and the matching criteria (query). It is unambiguous and informative, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like twitter-news or twitter-user-tweets.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as twitter-user-tweets or twitter-search siblings. The only usage hint appears in the text_only parameter description, which is parameter-level guidance rather than tool-selection guidance.

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 description adds scope behavior by stating it reads the entire thread/conversation rather than just the supplied tweet. Read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive hints are already provided by annotations, so the description does not need to restate them. It does not disclose pagination or rate-limit behavior, though the cursor parameter is present in 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?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no filler and does not duplicate schema or annotation 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 read-only thread tool with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema and no mention of paginated or potentially large responses, the agent may not know what response shape or multi-call behavior to expect. The 'entire thread' wording implies scope but not the mechanics.

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?

All three parameters are documented in the schema, including detailed guidance for text_only, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, but the schema already carries the burden, so the baseline score of 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?

The description uses a clear verb 'Read' and targets a specific resource: an entire tweet thread/conversation, which helps distinguish it from sibling tools that read single tweets or search. It does not explicitly name sibling differentiators, but the scope is evident from 'entire thread'.

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?

No text in the description states when to choose this tool over siblings like twitter-read, twitter-user-tweets, or twitter-search. The input schema gives guidance only for the text_only flag, not for tool selection. This leaves the agent to infer usage from name and title.

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, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the 'recent' temporal scoping, which is a modest behavioral detail, but it does not disclose output format, pagination behavior, or rate-limit implications. With annotations doing most of the safety disclosure, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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, so the description should ideally clarify return shape beyond 'tweets'. The schema's text_only parameter hints at tweet fields, but full output format and recency bounds are unspecified. Still, with well-documented parameters and clear safety annotations, the tool is callable without major guesswork.

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 input schema fully documents handle, count, cursor, and especially text_only with rich conditional guidance. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 for fully covered schemas.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('recent tweets from a specific X/Twitter user'), which is unambiguous for an agent selecting a user-timeline tool. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like twitter-read or twitter-search, so it loses the top score, but the purpose is still clear.

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 the tool is for retrieving a specific user's recent tweets, giving a clear usage context. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as twitter-search, twitter-thread, or twitter-read, nor does it provide any exclusions. The text_only parameter has usage guidance, but that is parameter-level, not tool-selection guidance.

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