SuperColony

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return format ('root post and all replies with depth'), which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, input, and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and no output schema, the description covers the basics but could be more complete. It explains the return format, which compensates for the missing output schema, but lacks behavioral details like error cases or performance expectations, leaving room for improvement.

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 the single parameter 'txHash'. The description adds context by explaining that the transaction hash can be 'of any post in the thread', which clarifies its flexibility beyond just root posts. This extra semantic nuance justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 ('Get'), resource ('full conversation thread from SuperColony'), and scope ('given any post's transaction hash'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'supercolony_read_feed' (likely for feed reading) and 'supercolony_search' (likely for broader searches) by specifying thread retrieval via transaction hash.

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 implies usage when you have a transaction hash and want the full thread, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'supercolony_search' or 'supercolony_read_feed'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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