x_research_topic

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses retries, receipts, and a sampling strategy, which is real behavior beyond the schema. However, it omits permissions/auth requirements, expected duration or rate limits, and failure behavior beyond retries for what is clearly a long-running autonomous 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with dense but relevant content; each listed capability (retries, receipts, extractions, sampling) maps to actual behavior. It is efficient, though the trailing list is somewhat run-on.

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 complex 7-parameter autonomous tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is adequate but incomplete. It never explains what the research pass returns or what a 'receipt' bundle contains, which matters since output_schema is absent and return values go undocumented.

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 every parameter (save, outputDir, postLimit, threadDepth, profileLimit, communityLimit) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond what the schema provides. 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Run an autonomous X research pass for a topic') and enumerates the composite sub-operations (post/thread/profile extraction, community sampling) that differentiate it from atomic siblings like x_search_posts or x_extract_post. It reads as a higher-level orchestrator rather than any single sibling, which is a meaningful distinction. It stops short of explicitly declaring itself the composite of those siblings.

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 word 'autonomous' and the multi-step framing imply this is for comprehensive research passes rather than one-off fetches, but no when-to-use/when-not is stated and no alternatives (e.g. x_search_posts + x_extract_post) are named. Usage is only inferable from the scope wording.

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