anilist_react

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds that 'LIKE toggles the like state,' which is a non-idempotent behavior not captured by annotations. It also mentions authentication needs. It could further explain reply behavior but is sufficient.

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 extremely concise: one main sentence plus two short clarifying statements. No redundant information; every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

The description omits any mention of the return value or confirmation of the action. Since there is no output schema, this information would be helpful for an agent to understand what to expect after executing the tool. However, the tool's simplicity partially mitigates the gap.

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 descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by linking activityId to anilist_feed and clarifying that LIKE toggles state while REPLY posts text. This goes beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Like or reply') and resource ('AniList activity'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like anilist_feed (which retrieves activities) and anilist_activity (which likely fetches details), specifying the action of interacting with an activity.

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 specifies when to use the tool ('when the user wants to interact with an activity from their feed') and notes a prerequisite ('Requires ANILIST_TOKEN'). It does not explicitly state alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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