bsky_get_likes

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 only states the basic action ('get likes') without mentioning rate limits, pagination, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the lack of behavioral context and parameter semantics leaves gaps. It meets a bare minimum but doesn't fully prepare an agent for effective use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions '指定投稿' (specified post), which hints at the 'uri' parameter, but doesn't explain what a URI is in this context or mention the optional 'acting_handle' parameter at all. This leaves key semantics 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 tool's purpose: '指定投稿のいいね一覧を取得します' translates to 'Get a list of likes for a specified post.' This is a specific verb ('get') + resource ('likes') combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like bsky_get_post_thread or bsky_get_author_feed, which might also return engagement data.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), compare it to siblings like bsky_get_post_thread (which might include likes), or specify use cases (e.g., analyzing engagement). This leaves the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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