bluesky_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It covers limits (300 graphemes), URL handling, return format (uri, cid, posts array), and common errors. It doesn't detail rate limits or visibility, but these are standard for posting tools.

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 concise, with three sentences covering purpose, prerequisites, behavior, and errors. It front-loads the primary function and wastes no words.

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 (two params, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose, prerequisites, limits, error types, and return format. Minor gaps include lack of detail on response handling.

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 100%, and the description repeats the mutual exclusivity and character limits already present in the schema. It adds no new semantic information beyond what the input schema provides.

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 directly to Bluesky as a single post or reply-chained thread. It uses specific verbs and resources, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bluesky_mentions or bluesky_reply.

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 usage context including prerequisites (configured handle and app password), grapheme limits, and URL auto-linkification. However, it doesn't explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternative tools for replying or reading, leaving some ambiguity.

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