share_post

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 discloses the behavioral effect (followers' feeds see it via the user) and that it is a non-destructive action. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, reversibility (though sibling unshare_post exists), or any side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences long, each providing distinct information (action and effect). No redundant or filler content. Information is front-loaded and the structure is clear.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose and effect but misses any guidance on the post_id parameter. The output schema presumably documents return values, so that gap is acceptable. However, the parameter omission leaves the agent without enough context to correctly invoke the tool.

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 the input schema has no descriptions for the post_id parameter. The tool description does not add any meaning to the parameter; it does not explain what post_id refers to or any constraints. The agent must infer from context, which is insufficient.

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 (reblog/share) and the resource (opportunity). It distinguishes from similar tools like like_post by noting higher amplification and that followers see it via the user. This specificity helps the agent understand exactly what the tool does.

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 context on when to use the tool (for higher amplification than a like) and implies it is for sharing to followers. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, the contrast with 'like' gives useful guidance. A more explicit when-not or alternative mention would push it to 5.

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