comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the user-approval requirement before posting, notes that nothing is posted without explicit confirmation, and mentions that Monnet may respond. This covers the main side effects and permission aspects, though it doesn't address other potential behaviors like edit/retraction.

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?

Two clear, well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and usage pattern; the second covers the approval workflow and response behavior. No wasted words.

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 description is self-sufficient for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It covers the purpose, thread depth rule, approval mechanism, and potential Monnet response, providing all necessary context for safe and effective use.

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 already provides detailed descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage), including the parent_id thread-depth constraint. The description adds little beyond the schema for parameter meaning, meeting the baseline for 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 a specific action ('Post a public comment on a motion') and differentiates between top-level and reply comments. It distinctly positions the tool relative to siblings like approve/reject and ask_monnet.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (posting a public comment) and how to use it for both top-level and threaded replies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but context is unambiguous.

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