get_upvoted_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and parameters; it does not disclose whether authentication is required, how the 'current user' is determined, whether the operation is read-only (likely but unstated), or any pagination/rate-limit behavior. 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 concise and well-structured, with the main action front-loaded and parameters listed clearly in a compact Args block. There is no extraneous text or repetition, making it efficient for an agent 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?

The tool is a simple getter, and an output schema exists (so return format is covered elsewhere). However, the description omits authentication requirements and how the 'current user' is resolved, which are relevant for correct invocation. The parameter defaults hint at behavior but are not explicitly explained. Overall, adequate but with notable gaps.

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 must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter: username (optional, defaults to current user), access_token (optional), and limit (range and default). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema, though it could elaborate on the relationship between username and access_token or how authentication is established.

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 and resource: 'Get user's upvoted posts.' It is distinct from siblings like get_downvoted_content or get_saved_content, though it does not explicitly name the platform (likely Reddit). The purpose is specific and unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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 such as get_saved_content, get_hidden_posts, or get_downvoted_content. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The only usage hints come from parameter names and defaults, which are not enough for an agent to make a deliberate choice.

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