moltbook_get_home

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 that the tool returns a 'comprehensive summary' with specific components (notifications, DMs, etc.), which adds behavioral context beyond a basic read operation. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by details on the return value and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains what it returns, and the third provides context for use. It's concise with zero waste.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a decent job by specifying the return components and usage context. However, for a tool that returns a 'comprehensive summary,' more detail on the structure or format of the output would be helpful, especially without an output schema. It's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose and output. A baseline of 4 is applied as it efficiently handles the lack of parameters without unnecessary details.

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's purpose: 'Get the Moltbook home dashboard' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Moltbook home dashboard'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'moltbook_get_feed' or 'moltbook_get_notifications' by specifying it returns a comprehensive summary including those elements. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 provides clear context for usage: 'Start here every check-in' implies this is the initial tool to use for regular updates, suggesting it as a starting point over alternatives. It doesn't explicitly list when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the guidance is practical and contextually useful.

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