retweet

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 does disclose a meaningful non-obvious trait — the tool operates on the current page state rather than a passed tweet identifier — but says nothing about toggling/un-retweeting, behavior if already retweeted, or failure modes.

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 short sentences, the action is front-loaded and the precondition follows immediately. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 zero-parameter action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential precondition but leaves behavioral questions (idempotency, already-retweeted state, error outcome) unanswered.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description correctly reinforces that the target is implicit in the open page.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (retweet the tweet) and scopes it to the currently open tweet page, which distinguishes it from id-based siblings. It implies but does not explicitly contrast with quote_tweet, which also acts on the open tweet.

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?

Provides one clear prerequisite ('navigate to the tweet first using navigate_to_tweet'), which is useful routing guidance. It gives no when-not guidance and does not mention quote_tweet as an alternative for adding commentary.

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