basecamp_comment_with_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does add the key behavioral trait that the file is automatically uploaded and embedded in one step, but it doesn't mention other potential behaviors such as formatting, permissions, or error conditions. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 concise, using just two sentences to convey the core purpose and the combined behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary detail, earning a perfect score.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential context of posting a comment with an attachment. It doesn't explain return values, but the output schema is absent, so that's not mandatory. It carefully positions the tool relative to siblings by emphasizing the integrated upload. Slightly more detail on preconditions or edge cases would make it more complete, but it's sufficient for selection.

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 doesn't add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely echoes file types already mentioned in the schema. The caption parameter is not elaborated in the description, but the schema already explains it well.

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 function: 'Post a comment with an attached file... to any Basecamp card or todo.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and explicitly highlights the combined one-step behavior, distinguishing it from separate comment and upload tools like basecamp_comment and basecamp_upload_attachment.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to attach a file to a comment in one step), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. This provides clear context without formal exclusions, which aligns with a score of 4.

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