post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It states 'Send' which implies a mutation, but does not mention side effects (e.g., persistence, visibility), authorization needs, rate limits, or whether the action is reversible. Agents lack critical behavioral context.

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 that front-loads the core action and key optional fields. It is not verbose and efficiently conveys the primary use case. Minor improvement would be adding a brief usage note, but it is already appropriately concise.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should be more comprehensive. It only sketches the use case but omits parameter details, return value structure, error handling, and any prerequisites. The tool is moderately complex, and this description leaves significant gaps.

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 add meaning. It only mentions 'subject', 'ref', and 'tag' as optional, without explaining the roles of 'to_lane', 'to_actor', 'ref', or 'tag'. The schema provides maxLength constraints but no semantic value; the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 'Send' and the resource 'attributable prose note/handoff', specifying recipients (lane and/or actor) and optional fields (subject/ref/tag). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_posts' (reading) and 'claim' (different action), making the tool's unique role evident.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings include 'ack', 'claim', and 'read_posts', but the description does not provide any context about when to prefer 'post' over these or any conditions for use.

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