post_agora_message

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds key facts that posts are signed and publicly readable, which is useful. However, it does not mention any requirements (e.g., authentication, key availability), potential irreversibility, or response details, leaving gaps in the behavioral profile.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and resource, followed by a concise behavioral note. Every word earns its place; there is no superfluous content.

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 post tool with a well-documented schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, with no output schema and no mention of return values, authentication, or error conditions, an agent might be unsure about what to expect after invoking it. The description covers the core intent but not the fuller operational context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no extra parameter-level context, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 action ('Post a signed message') and the resource ('the Agora feed'). It distinguishes itself from many siblings by focusing on the Agora feed, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison, so it misses full differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_message or broadcast. It states that 'anyone can read' implying public visibility, but this is more a property than a usage condition, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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