bluesky_social_tool

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

Annotations are empty, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only provides a vague return format ('dialogic dict') and a few examples, without addressing side effects, authorization, rate limits, or error handling. The 'fleet drafts' note is a workflow clue but doesn't reveal operational traits like whether operations are destructive or read-only.

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 short but poorly structured; the 'Portmanteau' opener is cryptic and wastes the front-loaded position. The return format section is clear but too generic, and the examples are helpful yet insufficient. The overall content is concise in volume but not in usefulness, with jargon like 'dialogic dict' adding confusion.

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?

With 13 parameters, no annotations, and only a vague return format, the description is far from complete. It doesn't enumerate possible operation values, explain output schema, or cover use scenarios beyond the outbox example. The tool's complexity demands a much more detailed description to be usable by an AI agent.

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 for parameter semantics. It only references operation and status_text in examples, leaving 11 parameters unexplained. While names like media_path and visibility are intuitive, their constraints, defaults, or interactions with operations are not described, and payload is entirely opaque.

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 opens with 'Portmanteau: post/timeline/outbox_*' which hints at a multi-operation dispatcher but never states a clear verb+resource purpose. The examples show operation=outbox_list, notifications, and outbox_enqueue, but no overarching statement like 'perform Bluesky social actions'. This leaves the tool's core function ambiguous and fails to distinguish it from siblings other than by implication.

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 only usage hint is 'fleet drafts use outbox_enqueue → approve → publish', which describes a specific workflow but doesn't explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like bluesky_help or show_outbox_card. There are no decision criteria for selecting operations, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. The guidance is minimal and not actionable for an agent.

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