check_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses what the check inspects and, crucially, the verdict contract (ok=false means do not publish as-is). It does not state permission/auth needs or whether the check is purely read-only, but the output semantics are a meaningful behavioral disclosure.

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 purpose and followed by the actionable verdict rule. No filler or repetition.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description usefully clarifies the ok=false semantics. However, the near-total absence of parameter guidance for a 3-param tool with 0% schema coverage leaves a real gap for correct 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 0% for three parameters (text, hashtags, platform), and the description never defines them. It only indirectly hints that hashtags and platform matter via the phrases "hashtag stuffing" and "platform length limits"; it does not explain the platform default of "x" or how hashtags relate to the text field.

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 names a specific verb+resource (risk check for a post) and enumerates exactly what is inspected: prompt leaks, engagement bait, hashtag stuffing, link stacking, platform length limits. This clearly separates it from the sibling generate_posts/save_draft/list_posts tools.

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?

"Pre-publish" gives a clear trigger context for when to call it, and "one post" scopes it to a single item. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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