x_api_get_users_reposts_of_me

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it states read-only risk, required OAuth scopes, environment-selection behavior, expected response shape, common failure conditions, and safety warnings. This exceeds minimal disclosure and gives an agent a clear behavioral model.

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 uses clear labeled sections, making it scannable, and front-loads the core purpose. However, it repeats 'Get Reposts of me' in the Use-when line, and some boilerplate could be trimmed. Overall it is well organized and earns its length.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, zero annotations, and no output schema, this description is impressively complete: it covers auth prerequisites, environment/credential selection, response shape, failure conditions, and includes a concrete example. The agent can reasonably invoke this tool with high confidence.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey in the environment-selection section, but only mentions max_results and pagination_token with a vague 'unknown' for pagination_token, and does not address authorizationKey or preferredAuthType at all. This leaves real gaps.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Get Reposts of me.' It indicates a specific endpoint for the authenticated user's reposts, distinguishing it from sibling tools like x_api_get_posts_reposts or x_api_get_posts_reposted_by. However, the phrase 'Reposts of me' is slightly ambiguous (reposts made by me vs. reposts of my content) and not disambiguated.

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 'Use when' line is tautological, but the 'Do not use when' section explicitly directs to alternatives like x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration and mentions needing auth/configuration tools first. It also lists recommended prerequisite and follow-up tools, giving useful contextual guidance.

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