extract_reddit_thread_tool

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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it partially does by disclosing what the tool returns and in what format. It is silent on important behaviors: whether authentication is required, how it handles deleted/private/NSFW threads, rate limits, or failure modes. For a network-scraping tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a meaningful gap.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line statement of what is extracted and in what format, then a short Args block. The Args section slightly duplicates the schema, but there is no filler and the reader reaches the essential content immediately.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no further explanation, and both parameters are described. However, for a scraping tool with no annotations, the description leaves out operational realities (auth, blocked or private content, rate limits) and any guidance on choosing this over scrape_url, leaving it adequate but not 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 0%, so the description must document both params and largely does: url is given a concrete Reddit URL example, and max_comments is explained as the count of top comments with its default. Only the acceptable range and overflow behavior for max_comments are left unstated, which keeps it below 5.

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 precise verb+resource pairing ("Extracts full Reddit post content") and enumerates the returned artifacts — post body, upvote ratio, author, top comments — plus the output format (dialogue Markdown). That specificity makes it self-evidently distinct from generic siblings like scrape_url or extract_rss_feed_tool without needing to name them.

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 Reddit-URL scoping implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. scrape_url for non-Reddit pages), and no prerequisites such as needing a public post. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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