send_tweet

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'post' (implying creation), but omits details like authentication needs, rate limits, or idempotency. This is insufficient for a write 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?

The description is extremely concise at 4 words, with no redundancy. However, it sacrifices some clarity and completeness; a single additional sentence could improve value without harming conciseness.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It fails to cover return values, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., authentication), leaving the agent underinformed for a nontrivial operation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it does not clarify parameter usage or constraints like the 280-character limit for text (already in 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?

Description clearly states the action ('Post a new tweet'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like quote_tweet, retweet, and send_tweet_with_poll by focusing on creating a new standalone tweet, but does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like send_tweet_with_poll or quote_tweet. The description lacks any context for selection, which is a significant gap given the many sibling tools.

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