post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the budget cost ('Each post you make consumes one round of the budget'), which is a key behavioral constraint. However, it does not mention message visibility, what happens after posting, or any failure behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 focused sentences: the first states the core action, the second discloses the budget cost, and the third gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and the critical budget behavior. It is slightly incomplete because it doesn't mention what happens on success/failure or explicitly cover the 'decision' kind, but overall it is quite complete.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by mapping kind values to use cases: 'set the brief' (brief), 'push back on the peer' (challenge), 'ask a narrower question' (question). It does not address the 'decision' kind, so it is not a full 5.

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 ('Post to the room') and explains the tool's role with concrete use cases: 'set the brief, push back on the peer, or ask a narrower question.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_room or write_spec.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use it to set the brief, push back on the peer, or ask a narrower question.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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