bluesky_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses credential requirements, grapheme limit, automatic computation of root/parent references, return format, and common errors. Lacks information on rate limits or idempotency, but covers key behaviors adequately.

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?

Five concise sentences, front-loaded with primary action, no redundant parts. Efficiently conveys all necessary information without fluff.

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, description returns format and errors well. It lacks explicit mention of mutual exclusivity between text and thread (though schema covers it). Overall sufficient for agent understanding.

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%, yet description adds meaningful context: explains automatic computation of AT Protocol references, reinforces character limit, and clarifies the thread chain behavior. This goes beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states 'Reply to a Bluesky post as a single reply or a chained thread,' specifying both the action and the resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like bluesky_post (new post) and bluesky_thread (view thread).

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?

Description mentions requirements (credentials, grapheme limit) and common errors, guiding proper use. It implicitly differentiates from posting new content but could explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for creating original posts). Still, it provides clear context for typical usage.

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