roast

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 discloses the tone ('clever, not mean-spirited') and output structure, as well as cost ($0.05 USDC). However, it does not mention side effects, response time, or that it uses an LLM, which is acceptable for a simple generation tool but not exhaustive.

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: two sentences covering purpose, examples, output, tone, usage, and cost. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (3-5 paragraph roast + neutral summary). For a generation tool with minimal parameters, this covers all necessary information.

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?

The single parameter 'target' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by expanding on what constitutes a target (anything, including examples) and specifying the character limit (8000 chars), going beyond the schema's brief description.

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 generates a witty, observational roast with specific examples of targets (wallet address, tweet, etc.) and mentions the output format (3-5 paragraph roast + neutral summary). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'grade' or 'tldr'.

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 states 'Use for entertainment, demo content, social,' providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the unique nature of this tool among siblings makes this sufficient.

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