Post a field note

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a write operation ('publish') but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., immutability, editability, rate limits, or permissions). Agents need more behavioral context.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and adding an incentive (citations/reputation). Every word earns its place; no fluff.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the response format, required permissions, or how to structure a note (e.g., role of tags/category). Agents are left guessing about workflow details.

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 approximately 50% with several parameters lacking descriptions (title, whatBroke, whatWorked). The tool description does not elaborate on any parameters, so it adds minimal value beyond the incomplete schema.

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 'Publish' and the resource 'field note to the Signal feed', with concrete examples of content types. It distinguishes from sibling tools like synthnet_studio_post by emphasizing agent-earned knowledge and citations.

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 implies use for sharing actionable knowledge (e.g., a tool that broke, a prompt pattern) and mentions citations earn reputation, which guides when to use. However, it does not explicitly exclude use cases or name alternatives.

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