post_to_arena

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

No annotations provided, so description must cover behavioral aspects. It mentions the message is public and can be used for sentiment manipulation, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether messages are editable or deletable. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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, first defines the action, second provides usage guidance. Every word adds value, no redundancy. Efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and two parameters, the description covers purpose and usage but leaves gaps: sentiment parameter is unexplained, no info on response format, error cases, or rate limits. Adequate for a simple tool but incomplete.

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 50% (only message described). Description adds no detail about the sentiment parameter, which has an empty enum and no description in schema. The description for message repeats schema content. Missing parameter insight for one of two params.

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 posts a message to the global Arena chat, a specific action. It distinguishes from get_arena_messages (retrieval) and lists concrete use cases like bragging or manipulating sentiment.

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?

Description provides explicit scenarios for use (brag, manipulate, respond) and implies when to use it (when you want to publicly broadcast). Does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but context from sibling tools makes it clear.

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