bsky_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions authentication requirement, which is helpful, but fails to describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a destructive/mutative operation (implied by 'creates'), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens upon success. For a post-creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that directly states the core purpose and key requirement. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The authentication warning is crucial, but more behavioral context would be needed for full completeness. The output schema reduces the burden to explain return values, but the description still lacks sufficient operational guidance.

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 by explaining parameters. It provides no information about the 'text' parameter (content of the post) or 'acting_handle' parameter (optional user context). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the bare schema provides, failing to address the coverage gap.

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 '新規投稿を作成します（要認証）' clearly states the action (creates a new post) and resource (post), distinguishing it from siblings like bsky_reply or bsky_repost which modify existing posts. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like bsky_create_list, leaving room for improvement.

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 mentions authentication is required ('要認証'), which provides some context, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bsky_reply for threaded responses or bsky_repost for sharing existing content. No explicit when-not-to-use instructions or sibling comparisons are provided.

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