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 states the action ('list') but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action without unnecessary words. It earns its place by conveying the essential purpose clearly and concisely.

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 has 3 parameters, low schema description coverage (33%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage beyond basics, and expected outputs, making it insufficient for reliable agent 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 description mentions 'published and draft posts' and 'platform', which aligns with the 'status' and 'platform' parameters, but schema description coverage is low at 33% (only 'platform' has a description). The description adds some meaning by implying status filtering, but doesn't fully compensate for the undocumented 'limit' parameter or provide details beyond the schema's enum for 'status'.

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 ('posts') with scope ('published and draft posts on a platform'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_drafts' or 'bluesky_search', which reduces specificity.

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 'list_drafts' (which might list only drafts) or 'bluesky_search' (which might search posts). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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