post_tweet

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral details beyond the basic action. With no annotations provided, it fails to mention authentication needs, rate limits, idempotency (e.g., duplicate tweets), or what happens on failure. The tool is clearly a write operation, but no safety or side-effect context is given.

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 sentence that conveys the core function and optional features efficiently. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though it could be expanded to cover key nuances without losing conciseness.

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 tool creates a resource (tweet), the description should mention the output (e.g., returns tweet object or ID). An output schema exists but is not referenced. No prerequisites, error conditions, or usage patterns are described. For a simple tool, critical gaps remain.

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 description briefly maps 'media', 'reply', and 'tags' to the parameters media_paths, reply_to, and tags, but adds no semantics about format, constraints, or relationship. For example, 'media' could imply file paths, URLs, or IDs, and 'tags' might be Twitter hashtags or arbitrary metadata. With 0% schema description coverage, this minimal addition barely helps.

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 action ('Post a tweet') and mentions optional features (media, reply, tags), making the purpose obvious. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_tweet or get_timeline by focusing on creation, but lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., user's own account).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that creating a reply uses the reply_to parameter or that media uploads might have prerequisites. Sibling tools like delete_tweet or get_user_tweets are not referenced.

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