generate_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the 8-stage pipeline, a QA self-critique step, offline vs model-backed execution, and the 1-10 bounds on num_topics. It omits cost, latency, and failure modes, but the environment-dependent execution behavior is an uncommon and valuable 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then a compact pipeline line and an Args block; each element earns its place. The em-dash/arrow formatting is slightly dense but not wasteful, and nothing is buried.

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 no explanation, and the description fully covers execution model and parameters. The remaining gap is the absence of any routing guidance relative to check_post and save_draft, which prevents a 5 for a tool with four siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate and it does: all six parameters are explained, including the allowed platform values (x, linkedin, instagram, tiktok, youtube, xiaohongshu, wechat), the num_topics range 1-10, the language auto/en/zh options, and the semantics of trends and material. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema.

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 first line gives a precise verb and resource: generate platform-specific social posts from brand material, and the pipeline enumeration (brand DNA → trends → ideation → copy → visual → storyboard → QA) makes the scope concrete. It never references the siblings (check_post, save_draft, list_posts), so differentiation from alternatives is left to inference, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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 supplies useful operational context — works offline without an API key, uses a real model when configured via YOMINPOST_PROVIDER/ANTHROPIC_API_KEY — but it never says when to reach for this tool versus check_post or save_draft, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is implied by the pipeline framing rather than stated.

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