show_outbox_card

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

With empty annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool 'summarizes pending outbox drafts', but it does not indicate whether this is a read-only operation, if it has side effects, or what the output format is. The lack of behavioral details is a significant gap for a tool that likely consumes UI resources.

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, concise sentence that gets to the point. However, the phrase 'Rich Prefab card' is not self-explanatory and adds slight ambiguity, preventing a perfect score. Still, it is efficiently worded with no waste.

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 having an output schema, the description is minimal and fails to provide context about what 'pending outbox drafts' are, what 'Rich Prefab card' means, or when the tool should be used. Given its simplicity, some context might be assumed, but the description alone is insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's role in a larger workflow.

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 tool has zero parameters, which earns a baseline score of 4. The input schema is empty, so there are no parameter details to explain. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and the 100% schema coverage is vacuous.

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 'Rich Prefab card summarizing pending outbox drafts' clearly states the tool's function: to display a card summarizing pending outbox content. It uses a strong verb ('summarizing') and a specific resource ('pending outbox drafts'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bluesky_help and bluesky_shutdown. The term 'Prefab' is somewhat jargon, but the core purpose is 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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contexts. Users are left to infer that this is for viewing outbox drafts, but there is no explicit direction.

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