page_comment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It meticulously details the entire sequence: detecting username via session_me, checking for duplicates (skips if duplicate), locating the editor, opening it, typing, submitting, and verifying. It also notes the return of result JSON. This is highly transparent about what the tool does, including potential side effects like avoiding duplicate submissions. It exceeds what annotations would typically provide.

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 concise, using a numbered list to break down the workflow. The first sentence states the purpose, followed by a clear sequence. It is efficiently written with no unnecessary words. The structure front-loads the main action and then details the steps, making it easy to scan.

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's moderate complexity (multi-step automation) and the lack of an output schema, the description provides a thorough overview of the process. It mentions dependencies (session_me), duplicate handling, and verification. However, it does not specify the exact structure of the returned JSON or any prerequisites like needing to be on a comment-capable page. These gaps are minor given the description's overall completeness, but they prevent a perfect score.

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 has only 33% description coverage (only 'text' is described). The description does not explicitly explain 'page_id' or 'session_id'. It mentions session_me, which hints at session_id's role, but does not clarify what page_id represents despite the description saying 'current page' (which contradicts the need for an explicit page_id parameter). The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving two of three parameters semantically unclear.

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 ('Submit a comment') and the specific resource ('on the current page'). It distinguishes itself from sibling page_* tools by describing a high-level workflow (detecting user, checking duplicates, interacting with the editor) rather than a generic action like typing or clicking. The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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 description implies when to use this tool: to post a comment on the current page. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (like manual page_type/page_click sequences) or exclusions, but the context makes its purpose clear. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate use.

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