x_api_get_posts_reposts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a solid job. It explicitly states 'Risk: read-only,' lists required permissions and OAuth scopes, explains environment-selection behavior for scopeTenantId/scopeUserId/scopeAccountId and credentialKey, details common failure conditions (including rate limits and missing credentials), and provides a safety warning about sensitive data. It does not mention the exact HTTP endpoint or any pagination behavior beyond the pagination_token parameter, but the disclosed behaviors are substantial and clear.

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 well-organized with labeled sections (Use when, Do not use when, Risk, Required permissions, Environment-selection behavior, Parameter formats, Expected response shape, Common failure conditions, Recommended tools, Safety warnings, Example). It front-loads the purpose and maintains a logical flow. Minor redundancy exists (repeating 'Get Reposts') and some boilerplate, but overall it is concise and each section earns its place.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to be thorough. It covers auth, environment selection, failure modes, and a generic response shape. However, it does not clarify the actual data semantics of 'Reposts' (what fields are returned, whether it lists repost objects or users, etc.) and the response shape is a generic wrapper with no endpoint-specific detail. The example helps but does not fully compensate for the missing semantic completeness.

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 explain three parameters (id, max_results, pagination_token) with type and path/query context, and the environment-selection section clarifies scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, authorizationKey and preferredAuthType are left unexplained, and max_results semantics (e.g., default, max) are not described. The compensation is partial but meaningful.

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 opens with "Get Reposts," which is essentially a tautology of the tool name x_api_get_posts_reposts. It does not specify what kind of reposts (e.g., reposts of a specific post, reposts by a user), and it does not distinguish it from sibling tools like x_api_get_posts_reposted_by or x_api_get_users_reposts_of_me. The only differentiating clue is the example using 'id', but the description itself lacks the necessary specificity.

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 a 'Do not use when' clause indicating that exploration or auth configuration should be handled by x_schema_discovery, x_query_suggestion, or auth tools first, and includes recommended prerequisite tools. However, the 'Use when' is a tautology ('Get Reposts') and there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over the many sibling repost-related tools. The guidance is generic boilerplate rather than tool-specific alternatives.

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