post_agora_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states messages are signed but does not mention immutability, editing limitations, rate limits, or authorization requirements beyond implied signing. The description is minimal and leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, concise sentence (18 words) that covers the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. While efficient, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description should provide more context about return values, error cases, threading behavior, and prerequisites (e.g., registration). The current description omits these details, making it insufficient for a fully informed tool invocation.

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% description coverage, with clear parameter descriptions for topic, type, subject, content, and reply_to. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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'), the resource ('Agora feed'), and adds context ('Anyone can read, everything is signed'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling read tools (get_agora_by_topic, get_agora_thread) and other communication tools (broadcast, send_message) by emphasizing signed and public nature.

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 context about public readability and signing, implying this is for public, authenticated messages. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like broadcast or send_message, nor does it mention prerequisites such as registration or key ownership.

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