status_post

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether posting is idempotent), default visibility (though schema notes default 'public'), or that it requires authentication. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action.

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 extremely concise (one sentence), but at the cost of useful details. It is front-loaded but too brief to be informative. Every word counts, but the lack of structure (e.g., separate when-to-use or behavior sections) reduces clarity for the agent.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (likely a status object), potential errors, or whether it is safe to call repeatedly. The agent would need to infer from context or other tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It does not elaborate on, for example, the format of 'media_ids' or the implications of different visibility options.

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 'Post a new status (toot)' clearly states the action (post) and the resource (status/toot). It distinguishes from sibling tools like status_delete or status_favourite, which perform different actions on existing statuses. However, it could more explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools, but none exist among siblings.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, such as authentication, or when to use other status-related tools. Sibling tools like status_favourite or status_reblog suggest alternative actions, but no explicit comparison is given.

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