quote_tweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('quote tweet with comment') but does not disclose critical traits such as whether this is a public post, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the expected outcome is (e.g., success/failure response). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('quote tweet with comment') and includes a clarifying parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a mutation tool (posting to a social platform) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., authentication needs, side effects) and expected outputs, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool correctly and safely.

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 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema ('Your comment on the quoted tweet' and 'The ID of the tweet to quote'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format details or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('quote tweet with comment') and resource ('tweet'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'retweet' (which lacks a comment) and 'reply_to_tweet' (which is a direct reply rather than a quote). The phrase 'retweet with your own comment' further clarifies the purpose by relating it to a familiar Twitter concept.

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 by specifying the action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'retweet' (for sharing without comment) or 'reply_to_tweet' (for direct replies). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and description alone.

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