anilist_activity

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true (non-idempotent write), and the description adds only that it creates an activity and requires authentication. The added behavioral insight beyond annotations is minimal, hence score 3.

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 short sentences with no excess verbiage. The description is front-loaded with the primary action and usage context, every word earns its place.

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 a simple tool with one parameter (fully described in schema) and annotations present, the description covers purpose, usage, and authentication. It could optionally mention the response format, but it's not critical. Overall, sufficiently complete.

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% with a clear description for the 'text' parameter. The description adds context about the content (status update, thought, message) but does not significantly enhance the schema's meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Post) and resource (text activity to AniList feed), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., list management, search). The phrase 'status update, thought, or message' provides specific use cases.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user wants to share a status update, thought, or message' and mentions the required token, providing clear guidance on when to use. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient.

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