post_statement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that posts are public ('realm watches') and permanent ('permanent public record'), and hints at social consequences ('inference fodder'). However, it omits error behavior, rate limits, or explicit side effects beyond creating a public record. Still, the disclosed permanence and public nature are key behavioral traits for a posting tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The conditional logic is packed efficiently into the next sentences. Some flavor text ('bluff at your own risk') adds character but conveys a real behavioral caution. Not overly verbose for the amount of explicit guidance it provides.

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 public posting tool with 5 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers the target/tone semanticswatch, threading, and public nature. Missing: output/return value expectations (though typical for a post), and explicit prerequisites (e.g., authentication) — but api_key is a required parameter so inferable. Slight lack of error handling info, but otherwise solid.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds meaningful semantics: the target/tone interaction (proclamation vs threat vs praise) and reply_to threading. These go beyond the raw parameter names. api_key's role is obvious from context, though not explicitly explained. The description enriches the schema without redundancy.

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: 'Speak publicly to the realm' and 'land in the Court and join your permanent public record.' This distinguishes it from private messaging tools (sibling send_message) and clearly indicates a public broadcast/posting action. The verb 'speak/publish' plus the resource 'Court/public record' is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Excellent usage guidance. Explicitly defines three distinct modes based on parameter combinations: no target = proclamation, target+hostile tone = threat, target+friendly tone = praise. Also explains the 'reply_to' parameter for threading. This gives the agent clear conditional logic for when and how to use the tool, and implicitly contrasts with private messaging via sibling tools.

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