twining_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states that entries are shared with other agents, but omits important behaviors like the side effect of back-referencing via relates_to (resolving open items) or the distinction from twining_resolve. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose, usage guideline, and exclusion. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, the exclusion sentence conflicts with the schema, slightly undermining its structural effectiveness.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more orientation about side effects, related sibling tools, and when to use this tool over alternatives. It only addresses the 'decision' exclusion, omitting the important resolution behavior of relates_to and the differentiation from tools like twining_status or twining_resolve.

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 a baseline of 3 would typically apply. However, the description directly contradicts the schema by claiming that entry_type 'decision' is not accepted, while the schema's enum explicitly includes 'decision'. This is a serious contradiction that misleads the agent about valid parameter values, providing no useful semantic addition.

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 tool's purpose: 'Share a finding, warning, need, or status update with other agents.' It uses a specific verb (share) and resource (entry types), and differentiates from siblings by explicitly noting it does not accept 'decision' entries and points to twining_decide instead.

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 usage guidance: 'Post a status entry before ending each session' and 'Does NOT accept entry_type decision — use twining_decide instead.' This includes both when to use and when not to use, with a clear alternative, satisfying the highest bar for this dimension.

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