retweet

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action 'Retweet a tweet by ID' without disclosing side effects, authentication requirements, potential errors (e.g., already retweeted), or rate limits. No behavioral transparency is provided.

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 extremely concise, but it includes an 'Args' block that redundantly restates the schema. While it is front-loaded and free of fluff, the redundant parameter line detracts from overall value. It is minimal but not efficiently informative.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks usage context, behavioral details, and parameter semantics. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this level of sparseness is inadequate for an AI agent 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?

The description says 'tweet_id: The tweet ID,' which simply repeats the schema's property title 'Tweet Id'. It adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, leaving the parameter's format, source, or constraints unexplained. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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 states 'Retweet a tweet by ID.' This provides a clear verb+resource combination, unambiguously indicating the action of retweeting a specific tweet. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like send_tweet or delete_retweet, though it doesn't explicitly mention that it creates a retweet on behalf of the authenticated user.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as like_tweet or send_tweet. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. It entirely lacks usage guidance.

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