bsky_like

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirements ('要認証'), which is useful, but fails to describe other critical traits: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'likes'), what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or if likes are reversible. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core action ('likes a specific post') and includes an essential prerequisite ('requires authentication'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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 a mutation tool with 3 parameters (0% schema coverage), no annotations, and an output schema (which might cover return values), the description is incomplete. It mentions authentication but omits parameter meanings, behavioral details like idempotency or effects, and doesn't leverage the output schema to clarify results. For this complexity, it should do more.

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%, meaning none of the 3 parameters (uri, cid, acting_handle) are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about what these parameters mean, their formats, or how they relate to 'liking a post'. It fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('いいねします' = 'likes') and the target ('特定投稿' = 'specific post'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'bsky_get_likes' (which retrieves likes) or 'bsky_repost' (which shares posts), missing explicit sibling distinction.

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 includes a prerequisite ('要認証' = 'requires authentication'), which gives some context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'bsky_repost' or 'bsky_get_likes'. It lacks explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives.

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