bsky_repost

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 the authentication requirement ('要認証'), which is valuable context. However, it doesn't describe what 'repost' means behaviorally (e.g., does it share to the user's feed, notify the original poster, have visibility settings, or support undo operations?). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 with just one sentence in Japanese, front-loading the core action ('リポストします') and key constraint ('要認証'). There is zero wasted language, making it efficient despite its brevity. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with 3 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is incomplete. While the output schema may cover return values, the description lacks crucial details: it doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications of reposting, or error conditions. For a social media interaction tool, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent 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 by explaining parameters. The description mentions no parameters at all, failing to clarify what 'uri', 'cid', or 'acting_handle' represent or how they relate to reposting a '特定投稿'. This leaves all three parameters undocumented, creating a significant gap in understanding required inputs.

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 states the specific action ('リポストします' - reposts) and resource ('特定投稿' - specific post), making the purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings like 'bsky_like' or 'bsky_post' by focusing on reposting rather than creating new content or liking. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar actions like sharing or forwarding, which might be implied in the Bluesky context.

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 usage context through '要認証' (requires authentication), suggesting this tool should be used when authenticated. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like 'bsky_post' for creating new content or 'bsky_like' for engagement. The authentication requirement is helpful but insufficient for full usage differentiation.

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