threadfox_full_kit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose meaningful side effects: publishing from the user's own Chrome and answering comments, plus recording every outcome. But it skips prerequisites, reversibility, output handling, and failure behavior, so the side-effect profile is only partially transparent.

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 one compact sentence with the key idea front-loaded and the workflow steps in a readable sequence. The comma-separated list is slightly prose-y but contains no filler.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the high-level process but leaves integration details open: what 'get the kit' returns, how 'records every outcome' is stored or exposed, and how the AI should coordinate with the sibling tools. It is minimally sufficient, not fully specified.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter documentation burden. The workflow list adds process context without needing to explain argument semantics.

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 names the resource ('full ThreadFox kit') and lists a workflow (reads rules, writes posts, publishes from Chrome, answers comments, records outcomes), so an agent can tell it covers an end-to-end process rather than a single utility. However, the opening phrase 'How to get...' restates the tool name and never explicitly states what invoking the tool does or returns. The differentiation from siblings is implied by 'full kit' but not stated.

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?

There is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus subreddit_rules or post_status. An agent can infer that the full kit might subsume the sibling tools, but the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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