sapiens_community

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing important side effects: Claude posts as the user's intercessor, the server appends '· via Claude', react is a toggle, mentions notify via bell and Telegram, media ownership is verified server-side, and asTese creates a branded, forum-pingable card. These details are consistent with readOnlyHint=false and give the agent an accurate mental model of the tool's effects.

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 dense and every clause contributes useful information. It could be more scannable with bullets or subheadings for each sub-action, but it remains efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a complex tool with five sub-actions and no output schema, the description covers all major aspects: action selection, mention protocol, asset attachment, TESE behavior, and editorial voice. It even describes expected outputs for participants and search_users, leaving little ambiguity for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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?

Even with 91% schema coverage, the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains how action selects a sub-behavior, how mediaAssetKind/mediaAssetId compose an asset card, how asTese changes the post type, and how query/search_users support mention autocomplete. This integration-level semantics is exactly what the agent needs beyond raw parameter names.

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 identifies the tool as the Sapiens community chat for subscribers/alumni and enumerates five concrete sub-actions (list, send, react, participants, search_users), each with a specific resource and behavior. This makes it readily distinguishable from siblings like sapiens_forum, even without an explicit contrast.

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?

It provides strong context for when to use the tool and strong intra-tool routing guidance, such as using participants/search_users to discover the correct @username before sending and using react for emoji toggling. However, it does not explicitly explain when this tool should be preferred over alternatives like sapiens_forum or when it should not be used.

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