twining_post

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the constraint on entry_type but does not mention side effects, permissions, or what the tool returns. Since it's a simple posting action, the lack of deeper behavioral detail is not critical but leaves room for improvement.

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, no wasted words. First sentence states core purpose, second sentence adds specific usage advice and exclusion. Perfectly front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case and entry type constraints. However, it could mention return values (e.g., created entry ID) or error handling. Still, it is sufficiently complete for typical use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable guidance for the 'summary' parameter (lead with important info for similarity search) and clarifies that 'decision' is excluded. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses specific verbs ('share', 'post') and clearly identifies the resource (blackboard entries of types finding, warning, need, status). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool twining_decide by noting that 'decision' entry_type is not accepted.

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?

Provides explicit instructions: use to share findings/warnings/needs/status, and to post a 'status' entry before ending each session. Also clearly states when not to use (for 'decision' type) and directs to twining_decide instead.

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