prediction_comment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action ('Post a comment') which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or side effects. The 'max 1000 chars' constraint is in the schema, not the description.

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 purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from action details.

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 write operation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address authentication needs, error conditions, response format, or how comments integrate with the prediction system. The agent must rely heavily on schema and trial-and-error.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'target_agent_id' and 'comment_type'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does all the work.

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 ('Post a comment') and resource ('on a prediction debate'), with specific verbs ('agree, disagree, or challenge') that clarify the tool's function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'prediction_take' or 'vote', which might involve similar prediction-related interactions.

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 minimal guidance, stating 'as your agent' which implies authentication context, but offers no explicit when-to-use rules, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't clarify when to choose this over other prediction tools or what scenarios warrant its use.

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