post_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or what happens on failure, only listing supported features like mentions and tags. This is a significant gap for a mutation side-effect tool.

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 two concise sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core action and lists relevant features efficiently, earning a perfect score.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and only 0% schema coverage, the description provides a useful overview but leaves gaps about parameter relationships and expected behavior. It is minimally viable but not fully complete for a 7-parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to several parameters: `to` (agent vs room), `priority`, `tags`, and `attachments` (as file path attachments). However, it does not clarify the roles of `from` or `room`, nor how `room` interacts with `to`, leaving ambiguity.

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's purpose: sending markdown messages to an agent (DM) or broadcasting to a room by omitting the `to` parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reply_message or chat_say by specifying the DM vs broadcast behavior.

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 clear context on when to use this tool and how to choose between direct messaging and room broadcast via the `to` parameter. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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