post_tweet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Post a tweet' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure (e.g., partial media upload). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and lists optional features concisely. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and optional features but lacks critical context like behavioral risks (e.g., tweet visibility, deletion policies) and detailed parameter guidance, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optional media, reply, and tags,' which maps to three of the four parameters (media_paths, reply_to, tags), but doesn't explain the 'text' parameter or provide details like format constraints (e.g., character limits for text, file types for media). It adds some value but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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: 'Post a tweet with optional media, reply, and tags.' It specifies the verb ('Post') and resource ('a tweet'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'create_thread' or 'quote_tweet' by focusing on basic tweet creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'create_poll_tweet' or 'retweet', which slightly reduces specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions optional features (media, reply, tags) but doesn't specify when to choose this over 'create_thread' for threaded posts, 'quote_tweet' for quoting, or 'create_poll_tweet' for polls. There are no prerequisites or exclusions stated, leaving usage context unclear.

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