linkedin_repost

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive action. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining the two distinct outcomes (instant repost vs. quoted post), which goes beyond what the annotations convey. It does not cover rate limits or visibility, but for this simple action, the disclosed traits are meaningful.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every clause adds value. The conditional explanation is compact and easy to parse.

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?

For a 2-param tool with no output schema and good annotations, the description covers the core behavior and both modes. It lacks details on side effects like posting visibility or potential duplicates, but is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions for both 'post' and 'thoughts'. The tool description repeats the effect of 'thoughts' but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already carries the semantic load.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Repost (reshare) someone else's post.' It then distinguishes two modes (instant vs. with thoughts), which clearly differentiates it from siblings like linkedin_create_post, linkedin_comment_on_post, and linkedin_react_to_post.

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 each mode: omit 'thoughts' for an instant repost, include it to create a new post quoting the original. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the distinction is sufficient to guide selection among sibling tools.

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