reddit get write schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description correctly reinforces that this is a pure schema lookup rather than a mutation. It adds genuinely useful context beyond the annotations: the schemas are 'pinned' and native, and local validation succeeding does not guarantee provider acceptance — a real behavioral caveat for anyone building write payloads.

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, both load-bearing: the first establishes what is returned and its scope, the second states the validation-versus-acceptance caveat. Nothing is padded and the scope statement is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and a single fully documented parameter plus read-only annotations keeps the burden light. The one remaining ambiguity is the phrase 'all implemented' — it implies some operations in the enum may not be backed by a real schema, which an agent would want stated outright.

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% and the operation enum lists all 18 values with an inline description, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies. The description adds only a loose framing ('all implemented campaign/ad formats', 'including targeting') without clarifying what 'implemented' means or how the returned schema is keyed.

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 names the resource precisely ('exact pinned native schemas for Reddit creation and edits') and scopes it to targeting and implemented campaign/ad formats, so an agent knows this returns schema documents, not data. It does not name its closest sibling (reddit_get_reporting_schema), so the read-vs-write schema split must be inferred from the phrase 'creation and edits'.

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?

Usage is only implied: the framing as 'schemas for creation and edits' suggests calling it before a write, and the note that 'provider acceptance is separate from local schema validation' hints at the pre-flight workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no pointer to reddit_get_reporting_schema or reddit_get_setup_guide for the non-write cases.

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