create_announcement

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It reveals the rate limit and that it targets the current project, but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether it updates a timeline, sends notifications, or is reversible). For a creation tool, more detail on what happens upon success/failure would be helpful.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the verb and resource. Every word adds value, with no wasted text.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the key points: action, target, and rate limit. Missing details about return value (e.g., what the response contains) are acceptable for such a straightforward 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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well explained in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond confirming the 'project' parameter refers to the current project. A higher score would require additional context not already in the schema.

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 action ('Create an announcement') and the target ('for the current Top.gg project'). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings which perform other operations like checking votes or getting project info.

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 includes a clear rate limit ('one announcement per 4 hours'), which guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state common usage scenarios or alternatives, though none exist among siblings.

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