check_media_signals

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses that signals are self-reported, directional, and have reputation_tier=2 and assurance_tier=1. It mentions possible no_adapter response. Could mention any limitations or side effects but sufficient.

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?

Description is well-structured and mostly concise, though slightly wordy in explaining parameters in two separate sentences. Generally 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 presence of an output schema, the description provides necessary context: supported platform, fallback behavior, and signal nature. Complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, description fully explains both parameters: namespace as the platform (with examples) and handle as the counterparty identifier. Adds meaning beyond 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 tool queries media-platform reputation signals for a counterparty. It explains parameters namespace and handle, and distinguishes from siblings by specifying which platforms are supported and fallback options.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: for Moltbook (supported) and when not: other namespaces return no_adapter status. Provides guidance to fallback to remember_counterparty + add_evaluation.

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