Pipepost

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication needs ('Requires handle + app password via setup') and cost ('FREE — no credit cost'), adding useful context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., post URL returned), leaving behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core functionality and prerequisites, and the second adds cost information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers purpose, prerequisites, and cost but lacks details on output (e.g., what's returned after posting), error cases, or advanced usage scenarios. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness for a mutation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('text' and 'thread') with their constraints (e.g., char limits, mutual exclusivity). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool handles 'a single post or a threaded series', which aligns with but doesn't expand on the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 ('Post directly') and resource ('to Bluesky'), specifying it can be used for 'a single post or a threaded series'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bluesky_reply' (which implies replying to existing content) and 'bluesky_thread' (which might retrieve threads), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 context for when to use this tool: 'Requires handle + app password via setup' indicates prerequisites, and 'FREE — no credit cost' suggests it's cost-effective. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. 'bluesky_reply' for replies or 'x_post' for other platforms), missing full sibling differentiation.

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