suggest_content_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions analysis and suggestions but does not clarify side effects (read-only vs. mutation), authentication requirements, rate limits, or output format. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient 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?

Two sentences pack all essential information: what the tool does, its key output components, and default behavior. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

No output schema exists, but description outlines expected outputs (posting times, content types, etc.). With 4 optional parameters, the tool is moderately complex. The description covers inputs and high-level outputs but could improve by clarifying if output is structured or free-text. Still largely complete for an analysis 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 coverage is 0%, but parameter names (actor, analyzePosts, includeTimingAnalysis, includeTopicAnalysis) are somewhat self-explanatory. Description adds context about defaulting to authenticated user but does not explain the numeric range or default of analyzePosts, nor boolean parameters beyond their names. Baseline 3 is appropriate as names provide partial meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the tool analyzes past post performance and suggests content strategy (best times, content types, topics, tips). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like analyze_engagement or recommend_content.

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?

Description implies usage for content strategy insights and notes default actor behavior, but lacks explicit when-to-use recommendations or when to avoid. No mention of alternatives or prerequisites.

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