reply

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions the 'confirm' requirement, which is a key behavioral trait (the tool requires explicit confirmation to publish). However, it omits other critical behaviors: what happens when confirm is false (likely no action), error conditions, idempotency, or rate limits. The description is minimally transparent.

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 very concise—a single sentence that communicates the core purpose and a key requirement. It is front-loaded, with the main action first. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to cover basic usage guidance.

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 has three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It fails to explain return values, error handling, or the behavior when 'confirm' is false. For a tool with moderate complexity, this level of detail is inadequate for reliable agent invocation.

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 100%, with all three parameters (url, text, confirm) explicitly described. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the 'confirm' requirement. Since the schema already documents each parameter's purpose, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Reply to a post.' It uses a specific verb ('Reply') and resource ('post'), making it easy to understand. Although brief, it distinguishes from siblings such as 'post' (creating a new post) and 'thread_post' (likely replying in a thread context). However, the distinction could be more explicit.

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 provides a single usage requirement: 'Requires confirm: true.' It does not elaborate on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'thread_post', 'post', or 'repost'. There is no guidance on context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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