get_downvoted_content

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation is a retrieval ('Get') and does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, potential error conditions, or what happens if the user has no downvoted content. The description adds minimal value beyond what the name already implies.

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 compact and well-organized, using a clear docstring format with an Args section. It avoids unnecessary words and front-loads the core purpose. Slight redundancy exists (the title and first line are similar), but overall it is efficient.

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 simple read operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. However, it omits important context such as authentication prerequisites (despite the access_token parameter) and does not mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., empty results). Given the lack of annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: username (optional, defaults to current user), access_token (optional), and limit (1-100, default 100). This clarifies semantics that the schema alone does not convey, such as the range and default for limit.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('user's downvoted posts'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_upvoted_content, get_saved_content, and get_hidden_posts. The phrasing is direct and leaves no doubt about the tool's purpose.

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 indicates the tool retrieves downvoted posts and mentions that the username defaults to the current user, which gives context for invocation. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use get_upvoted_content) or any exclusions or prerequisites, such as the need for authentication.

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