bsky_reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions authentication is required, which is a basic behavioral trait, but fails to disclose other critical aspects: whether this is a read-only or mutative operation (implied as a write since it's a reply), potential side effects (e.g., posting publicly), rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 very concise—a single sentence in Japanese that states the action and authentication requirement. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity. The brevity is efficient but may be too sparse for full understanding.

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 has 6 parameters (5 required), no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: no explanation of parameter roles, no behavioral details beyond auth, and no guidance on usage relative to siblings. For a mutative tool with multiple inputs, this is inadequate.

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 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about what parameters like 'parent_uri', 'parent_cid', 'root_uri', 'root_cid', or 'acting_handle' mean or how they should be used. It only implies 'text' is the reply content but provides no details. With low coverage and no compensation in the description, this score reflects the lack of parameter guidance.

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: '特定投稿へ返信します' translates to 'replies to a specific post.' It specifies the verb (reply) and resource (post), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like bsky_post (which creates new posts). The mention of authentication ('要認証') adds context but doesn't fully distinguish it from other tools that may also require auth.

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 minimal guidance: it mentions authentication is required ('要認証'), but offers no explicit context on when to use this tool versus alternatives like bsky_post for new posts or how it relates to other reply-related tools (none listed). There's no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools, leaving usage ambiguous.

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