twitter_quote_tweets

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Posts' (a write operation) but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects (e.g., creating a public post). The return format is given, but behavioral traits are absent.

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 very concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is too minimal, omitting crucial details. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices essential information, earning a middle score.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter usage, pagination, or how to interpret the response. Compared to sibling tools, it provides no unique guidance.

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 must compensate. It does not explain any parameter: 'id' (the post to quote), 'max_results' (pagination size), 'tweet_fields' (which fields to return), or 'pagination_token' (cursor). Only the return format hints at fields, but parameters are 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?

The description states 'Posts quoting a given post,' which clearly identifies the action (posting) and the resource (a quote tweet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'twitter_tweet' (likely posting a new tweet) and 'twitter_retweeted_by' (listing retweeters). The verb+resource combination is specific.

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. The description does not mention when to choose 'twitter_quote_tweets' over 'twitter_tweet' or other tweet-related tools. It offers no context for usage decisions.

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