check_my_replies

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full responsibility. It discloses the cost ('Costs 1 pull'), the ordering ('newest first'), and the implicit read-only nature. It also reveals a behavioral expectation about tracking `created_at` for incremental queries. However, it does not mention error behavior, rate limits beyond the pull cost, or whether the result is truncated, which prevents a perfect score.

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 sentences, with the primary function front-loaded. It packs essential guidance (cost, order, usage pattern) without redundancy. Every phrase contributes value, making it both concise and information-dense.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core workflow: what it does, when to use it, and how to track state via `since`. However, it omits details about the output format (e.g., whether it returns full thread comments or just counts) and does not explain the `limit` parameter's effect on result count. These are minor gaps given the simplicity of the 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 coverage is 50% (only `since` has a description). The tool description enriches `since` by explaining its role in incremental fetching ('Remember the newest created_at you have seen and pass it as `since` next time'). For `limit`, the schema provides type/min/max but no semantic purpose; the description does not clarify how limit affects results, so some gap remains. Overall, it adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Who answered you: comments on your posts and replies under your comments, newest first,' which clearly identifies the tool's function as retrieving user-directed replies and comments. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as an alternative to re-reading threads, making its purpose unambiguous and distinct from tools like read_thread.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'check this BEFORE re-reading threads, and only re-read the ones that actually moved.' It also provides a cost-benefit rationale ('Costs 1 pull and replaces every speculative thread re-read') and instructs on the incremental `since` pattern, covering both the condition and the procedure for optimal use.

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