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. It states the tool retrieves account info, implying a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness, authentication requirements, or error handling. For a getter with no annotations, this lack of explicit behavioral context is a 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that says exactly what the tool does and what it returns. There is no wasted verbiage; every word contributes to understanding 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 no output schema, the description partially covers return values by listing fields, but it does not specify the response format, error behavior, or any caveats. With no annotations and a simple getter tool, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks details about edge cases like non-existent or private accounts, making it only minimally complete for an agent.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds value by listing the output fields (username, followers, posts), which is helpful even though no parameters exist. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for any schema 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 clearly states the verb 'Lay' (get) and the resource 'thong tin tai khoan Instagram' (Instagram account info), with specific fields listed: username, follower count, post count. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_photo or list_media, which focus on posting or media retrieval.

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 need account info, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but no explicit guidance is given, so it meets the 'implied usage' level.

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

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. It only states the basic action, offering no insight into sorting, pagination, side effects, or return behavior.

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 short sentence, making it concise and easy to parse. However, it is slightly under-specified, though not padded with unnecessary content.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand return values, pagination, or acceptable inputs. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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 has zero description coverage, and the description does not explain the roles of media_id or limit. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no additional meaning or constraints.

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 'Lay binh luan cua mot bai' translates to 'Get comments of a post', clearly stating the action and resource. It is specific enough to be understood but does not distinguish itself from sibling tools beyond its name.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like reply_comment or list_media. The description provides no context about prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions.

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

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. It conveys that this is a read operation ('Lay' = get) and that it uses media_id, but it does not mention return format, error behavior, authentication, rate limits, or any potential side effects.

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 short sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified. It earns its place by adding the 'by media_id' qualifier, yet it lacks the contextual depth needed for reliable use.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain return values and edge cases. 'Chi tiet' (details) is vague, and there is no information about the response structure, errors, or limits, making the tool description incomplete for robust invocation.

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 one parameter (media_id) with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does mention 'theo media_id' (by media_id), confirming its role as an identifier, but it does not explain acceptable formats, required format, or any special values beyond the schema's basic string type.

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 'Lay chi tiet mot bai theo media_id' (Get details of one post by media_id) states a specific verb (get) and resource (post/media). The phrase 'mot bai' (one post) implies a singular lookup, distinguishing it from list operations, though it does not explicitly mention sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no prerequisites. The description simply states the operation, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and siblings.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, what the return format is, or any pagination/limit behavior beyond the schema's 'mac dinh 10' for the limit parameter. This leaves significant behavioral information undisclosed.

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, concise sentence in Vietnamese. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, effectively communicating the tool's core 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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what is listed (posted posts on Instagram) but does not specify the return structure or behavior, which could be confusing given the sibling 'get_media' tool.

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 fully describes the only parameter 'limit' with a default value, giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'lay' (get) with the resource 'danh sach bai da dang' (list of posted posts), clearly indicating a list operation on Instagram media. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tool 'get_media', the word 'danh sach' (list) distinguishes it as a listing operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_media' or 'get_account_info'. The description simply states what it does without offering contextual use cases or exclusions.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key constraint: maximum 10 items. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like whether the post publishes immediately, authentication requirements, or possible side effects. The 'max 10' is useful but limited.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraint. There is no filler or redundant information, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits important context such as whether the post is immediately published, whether items can mix images and videos, and what response is returned. The 'max 10' is helpful but insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and requirements.

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 coverage is 50% (only 'items' has a description). The tool description adds that carousel supports multiple photos/videos and a max of 10 items, which helps clarify the 'items' parameter. It does not contribute any meaning for 'caption', which lacks schema description, so it only partially compensates.

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 tool posts a carousel (multiple photos/videos) to Instagram, with a specific verb 'Dang' (post) and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like post_photo and post_reel by specifying the carousel format.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as post_photo or post_reel. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools, leaving the agent without decision support.

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

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 only states the action (posting) without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the post is immediately published. This is insufficient for a write operation, similar to the update_drive example.

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, direct sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a tool with two simple parameters.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description lacks essential context such as prerequisites, post-posting behavior, or error scenarios. It only covers the fundamental action, which is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description repeats the schema's note that the URL must be public but adds no new meaning for image_url. It does not explain the caption parameter at all, and with schema coverage at 50%, the description fails to compensate for the missing documentation.

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 action ('Dang 1 anh len Instagram' - post a photo to Instagram) and the source ('tu URL anh cong khai' - from a public image URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_reel, post_story_photo, and post_carousel, which target different content types.

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 the tool is for single photo posts, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use this tool versus post_carousel, post_reel, etc. There is no exclusion guidance or specific context, leaving usage to inference.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the video URL must be public, which is an important prerequisite. However, it does not describe potential side effects (e.g., the post appears publicly), required permissions, or error scenarios, leaving some transparency gaps.

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 extremely concise, fitting into a single sentence. It front-loads the primary action and then provides the essential video requirements. Every part is informative, with no filler or redundancy.

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 that there are no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context to fully understand the tool's behavior. It does not mention what the tool returns, any authentication needs, or potential failure modes. For a posting tool with 4 parameters, the description is minimal and leaves several important aspects unexplained.

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 description coverage is 50% (2 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what is in the schema. For example, it does not clarify the expected format of video_url or caption, which are not described in the schema. Thus, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 tool's purpose: 'Dang Reel (video) len Instagram tu URL video cong khai' translates to 'Post Reel (video) to Instagram from public video URL'. This specifies a distinct action (posting a reel) and resource (Instagram) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_photo or post_story_video.

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 usage context by specifying technical requirements: video must be 9:16 aspect ratio and 3-90 seconds long. This helps the agent decide if the tool is appropriate for a given video. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context is clear enough to infer when this tool is relevant.

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

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 that the image URL must be public, but it does not mention authentication requirements, visibility/audience behavior, or what happens if the URL is invalid or inaccessible.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, target, and parameter source without repetition or filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 the tool's low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral caveats, though these are less critical for such a straightforward operation.

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 only defines image_url as a required string with no description. The description's 'tu URL anh cong khai' clarifies that image_url must be a publicly accessible URL, adding meaning beyond the schema. This is sufficient for the single parameter.

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 specific verb 'Dang' (post) with a clear resource 'Story anh' (photo story) on Instagram and a source 'URL anh cong khai' (public image URL). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like post_photo, post_reel, and post_story_video.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as post_photo, post_reel, or post_story_video. It only states the action, without any selection criteria or exclusions.

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

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 mentions the input must be a public video URL, but lacks details about authentication, publishing behavior, format constraints, or error handling. For a mutating operation, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler. All important information is front-loaded and concise.

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 one parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the basic purpose and input constraint, but leaves out return values, side effects, prerequisites, and potential failures. It is adequate for a simple tool but minimal.

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 description adds that video_url must be a public URL, which is not in the schema. However, it does not specify the expected URL format (e.g., direct .mp4 vs page link) or any additional constraints. With 0% schema coverage, this is partial compensation.

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 tool posts a Story video to Instagram from a public video URL. The verb 'post' and resource 'Story video' are specific and distinguish it from sibling tools like post_photo and post_reel.

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 the tool is for story videos, but it does not explicitly differentiate from alternative tools like post_reel or post_story_photo. No when-to-use or exclusion guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action (reply to a comment) without mentioning side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling. This is minimal and does not help the agent understand the tool's operational behavior.

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 concise sentence, which is appropriately sized for a simple tool. It front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it sacrifices crucial detail, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 the tool's simplicity and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient for correct invocation. It does not clarify how to provide the comment ID or message, nor what response to expect. More detail is needed to enable reliable use, especially for an AI agent.

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 has two parameters (comment_id and message) with zero description coverage. The tool description does not explain the meaning or format of these parameters, so the agent has no additional insight beyond their names. This is a significant gap that the description fails to compensate for.

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 tool's purpose: replying to a comment on Instagram. It uses a specific verb ('reply') and resource ('comment'), which makes it distinct from sibling tools like get_comments. However, it does not elaborate on any specific behavior or constraints, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools such as get_comments or post_photo. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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