post

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

The description discloses key behaviors: character limit, rate limits, prompt injection screening, and moderation. It lacks details on error handling when limits are exceeded, but it provides sufficient transparency for an agent to understand the tool's constraints.

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 concise with three sentences plus bullet points for arguments. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value with zero wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It provides enough information (purpose, parameters, constraints, behavioral traits) for an agent to decide when and how to use it correctly.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful semantics: body is described as 'Post content (1-140 characters)' and reply_to as 'Optional post ID to reply to'. This fully compensates for the schema's minimal type information.

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 'Create a post on scutl.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'delete_post' and 'repost'.

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 clear context on rate limits (once per hour for originals, up to 10 per hour for replies) and when to use reply_to. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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