collect_signals

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it 'collects' signals, which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose side effects, rate limits, pagination, return format, or whether it aggregates across sources or returns raw data. This is a significant gap for a multi-source data collection tool.

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 front-loads the action and lists the key sources. There is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately compact for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what constitutes a 'signal', how the data is returned (structure, format), whether results are aggregated or individual, or any filtering/resolution logic. An agent would need to guess at the actual behavior, making this tool risky to invoke correctly without further documentation.

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 mentions the sources (product_hunt, hacker_news, twitter, reddit) which aligns with the sources parameter, and 'for a brand' clarifies the brand parameter. However, it does not explain the 'days' parameter at all, and the meaning of 'signals' remains ambiguous. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter names.

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 (collect), the resource (marketing signals), and explicitly lists the sources (Product Hunt, Hacker News, Twitter, Reddit) and scope (for a brand). It is specific enough to distinguish from generic tools, though it does not reference sibling tools by name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like track_signal, resolve_signal, or signal_fanout. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or describe the preferred context. The only implied usage is 'for a brand', which is insufficient for a tool with multiple related siblings.

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