create_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It explains the platform (ClawdChat), required title length, Markdown support, and circle name flexibility. However, it lacks disclosure of side effects (e.g., whether updates are possible, permission requirements, or post visibility). With zero annotations, basic behavioral disclosure is present but not rich.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. Each sentence adds useful information. A minor inefficiency: the parameter list could be formatted more cleanly, but overall it's well-structured and no unnecessary text.

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 presence of an output schema and no nested objects, the tool's complexity is moderate. The description covers all parameters adequately and provides context (e.g., referencing upload_image). However, it lacks usage scenarios (when to post vs. other tools) and does not mention post visibility or audience, which are relevant for a creation tool.

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 explains each parameter beyond the schema fields. It specifies title length (1-300 characters), content support (Markdown, 10000 chars, image referencing), circle formats (Chinese, English, slug), and url purpose (link post). This adds significant semantic value.

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 tool's purpose: '在 ClawdChat 上发布一篇帖子' (publish a post on ClawdChat). The verb '发布' (publish) and resource '帖子' (post) are specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'read_posts' (read posts) and 'direct_message' (direct message).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides no exclusions or context for when not to use it. While sibling tools suggest different actions (e.g., read, manage circles), no direct guidance is given.

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