validate_post

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavior. 'Sanity check' implies a non-mutating read operation, but it doesn't state whether it returns a boolean, list of errors, or any details about side effects. No information about output or what constraints are checked.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any filler. It wastes zero words and follows the pattern of minimal, focused descriptions.

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?

Despite the apparent simplicity of a validation tool, the description lacks essential contextual information: no return format, no mention of how media_count/media_types are validated, and no usage prerequisites. Combined with no annotations and no output schema, the tool is under-specified for safe 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%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (text, platform, media_count, media_types). The schema only provides types with no semantic context, and the description adds no meaning. The agent cannot infer what values are expected or how they interact.

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 uses a specific verb 'Sanity check' with a clear resource 'post' and context 'platform constraints', immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_post, update_post, or publish_post_now. No ambiguity about what action this tool performs.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used before publishing, nor does it reference any sibling tools. The agent is left to infer the use case from the name alone.

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