create_reply

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 only states the action 'reply' without mentioning side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, or the anonymous parameter's effect. No contradictions exist, but key behavioral context is missing.

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, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

Despite complete schema coverage, the description is sparse on context. It lacks mention of prerequisites (e.g., an existing followup_id), permissions, relationship to create_followup or create_post, or any output/response behavior. Since there are no annotations or output schema to compensate, the tool description is contextually incomplete.

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%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it remains at the baseline score.

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 'Reply to a follow-up discussion on a Piazza post' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like create_followup (which creates a new follow-up) and create_post. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 when to use the tool (when replying to an existing follow-up) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. It does not mention that the followup_id must exist or differentiate scenarios where create_followup would be more appropriate.

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