twining_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that 'decision' entry types are not accepted, despite the schema including it. However, it does not detail other behavioral aspects like persistence, error handling, or side effects. The contradiction between the schema enum and description is noted but the description itself is clear.

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 highly efficient sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose and supported types. The second provides a specific usage instruction and an exclusion with alternative. No wasted words; front-loaded with the most important information.

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 tool with 7 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what it does, when to use it (status before ending session), and what it excludes. The remaining parameters are well-documented by the schema descriptions (100% coverage). A minor gap is lack of explanation about the other parameters' semantics, but the schema compensates.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying a subset of entry types (finding, warning, need, status) and providing a specific usage context for 'status'. It also clarifies that 'decision' is excluded, which adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's enum listing.

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: sharing findings, warnings, needs, or status updates with other agents. It uses a specific verb ('share') and resource ('entry'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'twining_decide' by explicitly excluding the 'decision' entry type.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Post a 'status' entry before ending each session.' It also clearly states what not to use it for ('Does NOT accept entry_type 'decision'') and directs to an alternative ('use twining_decide instead').

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