prepare_reply

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by explaining what data is returned (tweet text, media as image content, account keywords, persona) and confirming no server-side LLM or posting. No contradictions.

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 efficient sentences: first sentence front-loads the purpose, second sentence specifies next steps. Every word earned its place with no filler.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and usage flow. It explains the context provided and the required follow-up actions, making it complete for a preparatory tool.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description implies the role of include_images for media attachment but does not explicitly map parameters. With no schema descriptions, the description could add more detail for each parameter.

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 is for preparing reply context: providing tweet text, media, account keywords, and persona. It distinguishes itself from siblings like reply_to_tweet and queue_engagement by emphasizing it is read-only and no server-side LLM or posting occurs.

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 instructs the agent to use this tool before writing a reply, then pass its output to reply_to_tweet or queue_engagement. It provides clear context on the workflow and no ambiguity about when to use.

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