social_planner

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the payment requirement (0.001 SOL cost) which is valuable context not in the schema, but doesn't disclose other important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or write operation, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the generated plan includes. The description adds some value but leaves significant 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?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core functionality and disclosing the payment requirement. There's zero wasted language, and the most critical information (payment requirement) is appropriately front-loaded in the second sentence.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal schema descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (a content plan format), how parameters interact, or provide enough context for an agent to understand the tool's behavior beyond the basic purpose and cost. The payment disclosure is helpful but doesn't compensate for other gaps.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage (only the 'signature' parameter has a description), the description provides no information about any of the 6 parameters. It doesn't explain what 'topic', 'platforms', 'postCount', 'tone', or 'includeHashtags' mean or how they affect the content plan generation. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 as 'Generates social media content plan' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'generate_quote' or 'pitch_deck' by focusing on social media planning. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar content generation tools beyond the social media context.

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 minimal usage guidance with 'Requires payment (0.001 SOL)' indicating a cost prerequisite, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'generate_quote' or 'interview_questions'. There's no mention of appropriate contexts, exclusions, or comparison with sibling tools for content generation tasks.

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