reelier_push

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: first push uploads skill file, requires specific env vars, reports honest error when missing. Does not detail all side effects (e.g., no mention of local state changes) but covers essential traits for a push 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 description is concise (three sentences plus a usage hint) and front-loaded with the action and key consequence. Every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more structured but not verbose.

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 5 parameters (1 required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, env requirements, first-push behavior, and when to use. Lacks return value details, but output schema is absent. Overall complete for a push tool.

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%—every parameter is already described in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond mentioning 'first push' behavior, which is tool-level, not param-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it pushes local run records to a receipt ledger, creating shareable permalinks and badges. The purpose is distinct from siblings (scan, from_session, replay) and includes a specific 'USE WHEN' guide.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' condition provided: 'a run's receipt should be durable or shareable.' Also notes env requirement and behavior when missing. Does not explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, but sibling list provides context.

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