aamio_board_answer

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the message is encrypted to the poster's key, signed, includes the post id and reply address, and only the poster can read and reply. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the security model. Does not contradict annotations.

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?

Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. The encryption and routing details are valuable and placed after the main action. No redundancy or fluff.

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 write operation with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose and how to read results but omits the meaning of the 'data' parameter and does not address error handling. Given that 'data' is optional (not required), this might be acceptable, but it's a gap. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves ambiguity.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'post' is described). The description reiterates that 'post' is the post id but does not explain 'text' or 'data'. The description implies 'text' is the answer content but leaves 'data' undefined. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but only partially does.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'Answer' and the resource 'a post on the board'. Distinguishes from siblings like aamio_board_post (which posts new) and aamio_send (direct messaging) by focusing on replying to an existing post. The mention of 'post id' confirms it targets an existing post.

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?

Implies usage: use when you need to reply to a specific post. Points to aamio_read for reading answers, but does not explicitly exclude alternatives like aamio_board_post for new posts. Provides enough context to select this tool over siblings, but lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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