x-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool performs a quote retweet with commentary, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the action is reversible (e.g., via 'delete_tweet'), potential side effects, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 core action ('quote retweet a post on X') and adds essential detail ('adds your commentary above the quoted post'). There is zero waste, and every word earns its place by clarifying the tool's purpose.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about authentication, error handling, return values, and behavioral constraints. While the purpose is clear, the description doesn't provide enough context for safe and effective use by an AI agent without additional assumptions.

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 three parameters (tweet_id, text, media_ids) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as formatting examples or constraints on the commentary text. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('quote retweet'), the resource ('a post on X'), and the exact functionality ('adds your commentary above the quoted post'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'retweet' (which doesn't add commentary) and 'reply_to_tweet' (which creates a reply thread rather than a quote retweet).

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 usage when you want to share a tweet with your own commentary, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retweet' or 'reply_to_tweet'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer context from the action described.

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