Rendimiento de publicaciones

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does mention the side effect of persisting to SQLite, which is useful, but it omits details such as whether data is appended/overwritten, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The transparency is adequate 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main action and includes essential details (source, data fields, persistence). No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (one param, no output schema), but the description does not clarify the return value or the outcome of persistence (e.g., confirmation, count, or data returned). It also lacks context about error cases or prerequisites. These gaps reduce completeness, though the core function is clear.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description for 'limite'. The tool description adds no further parameter context beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does not clarify how 'limite' affects the extraction or persistence behavior.

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 a specific action ('Extrae') on a well-defined resource ('publicaciones recientes del propio timeline (timelinenew)') and lists the extracted data types (likes, comments, tips). It stands out from sibling tools by mentioning persistence to SQLite and the specific 'timelinenew' source.

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 functional description implies usage for extracting and storing post performance data, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. Without a 'use when' or comparison to siblings, the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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