reelier_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behavioral traits: requires an apiKey, reports skipped-no-key when absent, always resolves cloud URL, and on first push also uploads the skill file. It does not cover all side effects (e.g., cursor behavior, state changes) but is fairly transparent for a push operation.

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, fitting key points into a single paragraph with a clear 'USE WHEN' signal. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more streamlined by merging the apiKey note into a single sentence. Overall, it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and usage context but lacks details on parameter-specific behavior (e.g., how 'all' resets cursor, dryRun impact) and output format. It is adequate but not fully complete for a complex tool with multiple options.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful information about parameters beyond the schema; it mentions the apiKey requirement but not how parameters like 'all', 'dryRun', or 'withSkill' affect behavior. Thus, it adds minimal value over the schema.

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 action ('Push a skill's local run records... to your receipt ledger') and the result ('shareable permalink + verified-replay badge'), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on run record pushing, while siblings like scan, replay, from_session, and diff serve different purposes.

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 includes a 'USE WHEN' clause ('a run's receipt should be durable or shareable') that provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. It also notes the apiKey requirement, but does not explicitly compare to sibling tools or state when not to use it, slightly reducing the score.

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