Pipepost

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 adds context about being 'FREE — no credit cost', which is useful for cost considerations, and hints at default filtering. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what the response format looks like, leaving gaps for a tool with no output schema.

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 appropriately sized with two concise sentences: one states the purpose and default behavior, and the other adds cost context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, and every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without 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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and cost aspect but lacks details on behavioral traits like response format, error cases, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context on what to expect from the tool would improve 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (limit, cursor, reasons) with details like defaults and valid values. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'reasons' filter further or providing usage examples. 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 verb ('List') and resource ('notifications for the configured Bluesky account'), specifying the default types ('mentions and replies'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'bluesky_search' or 'bluesky_thread' by focusing on notifications rather than content search or threads. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'analytics' or 'status', which might also involve data 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 by stating the default behavior ('mentions and replies by default') and notes it's 'FREE — no credit cost', which suggests a cost-effective alternative. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bluesky_search' for broader content or 'analytics' for metrics, and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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