buzz_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully discloses that @Name mentions are resolved to p-tags and trigger agents, and that attachments are uploaded from a local path. However, it does not cover permissions, visibility, or message persistence, and no output/return behavior is described.

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?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action comes first, followed by the important mention behavior, then the optional attachment detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 posting tool, the description covers the primary action, the mention mechanism, and the attachment option; the schema supplies required fields and size caps. It doesn't describe return values or channel identification details, but those are not critical for basic 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?

The schema only documents the attachment parameter, so the description adds meaning to text (message content, @Name mention syntax) and channel (the target channel). The attachment parameter is already well described in the schema, so the description's repetition is acceptable. Some detail about how to specify the channel (name vs ID) is still missing.

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 action and target: 'Post a message to a channel.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like buzz_dm_send and buzz_react through the explicit channel context and the detail about mentioning agents.

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?

It explains when to use the tool: to post a message to a channel, and it adds specific guidance about using @Name to trigger an agent. It does not explicitly name excluded alternatives, but the channel-vs-DM distinction is strongly implied by the sibling tool names.

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