thth_preview

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('読むだけ') and that it returns content without modification ('前後に何も足さない'), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it omits details like error handling or what happens if the file does not exist, which would be expected for a complete transparency.

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 that front-loads the core action and outcome. It is efficient with no wasted words, achieving clarity without verbosity.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns and its read-only nature. While it lacks explicit usage guidance, the tool is straightforward enough that the provided information is largely sufficient, especially with the sibling context available.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with 'queue ファイルのパス' for the file parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning by indicating the file is the source of the body text, but it does not elaborate on format, encoding, or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 returns the exact body text to be posted, specifying it is the media section and adds nothing before or after. This is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like thth_queue or before_you_post, which could be confused without deeper context.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings, such as when to preview versus queue or post. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context, which is insufficient given the number of related tools.

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