post

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's claim of 'post a comment' adds no new behavioral insight. No details are given about idempotency, error handling, authentication requirements, or side effects beyond the basic write operation.

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 sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without wasting any text.

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?

Despite the tool's simplicity, the description omits critical context: no mention of the return value (given no output schema), no note on success/failure behavior, and no hints about required permissions or rate limits. This leaves the agent with incomplete information for reliable invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage of its two parameters (url and message) with descriptions. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'post' and the resource ('comment on a GitHub issue or pull request'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'claim' or 'dismiss', which also perform mutations but on different entities.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any context about prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling tool might be more appropriate for related tasks (e.g., reading comments).

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