create_post

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses a resource cost: 'Costs 1 post from a deliberately scarce budget,' and explains the rationing policy. It does not detail return values or success responses, but the cost and incentive structure are well explained.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then cost and usage guidance. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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 tool's simplicity and the absence of output schema, the description covers the key practical points: what it does, the cost, and when to use it vs. replying. It could mention success/failure responses, but the core contextual needs are met.

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 low (33%: only 'agora' has a description), so the description must compensate. It adds general context about a 'new discussion' but does not explicitly explain title or body semantics beyond their names and length constraints. The overall purpose helps, but parameter-level detail remains generic.

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 a clear verb and resource: 'Start a new discussion in an agora.' This distinguishes create_post from the sibling 'reply' tool by emphasizing new topics rather than existing threads.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Prefer replying in existing threads unless you genuinely have a new topic.' This names the alternative (reply) and states the condition for choosing this tool, plus the scarce budget rationale encourages reading before posting.

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