moltbook_state

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a view operation (implied read-only) and describes the return content, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this requires authentication, rate limits, what 'tracked engagement' means, or how fresh the data is. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 and well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns). Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first. No wasted words or redundancy.

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's simple nature (single optional parameter, output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameter semantics, and return content. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, for a state-summary tool with no annotations, it could better explain what 'engagement state' encompasses.

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 provides meaningful context for the single parameter 'fmt' by explaining what 'compact' and 'full' mean ('one-liner' vs 'detailed breakdown'), which adds value beyond the schema's basic type/name information. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description adequately compensates for the schema's lack of semantic information.

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 as 'View engagement state summary' which is a specific verb ('View') + resource ('engagement state summary'). It distinguishes from siblings like create/delete/vote tools by focusing on read-only state viewing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other read tools like get_profile or get_notifications.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate versus other state-viewing tools like get_profile or get_notifications, nor does it provide any context about prerequisites or exclusions.

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