retweet

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a write operation (implied by 'retweet'), what permissions are required, rate limits, whether it's idempotent, or what happens if the tweet is already retweeted. The description fails to provide essential behavioral context for a mutation tool.

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 just three words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and a sibling tool ('unretweet') that performs the inverse action, the description is insufficiently complete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description lacks crucial context about behavior, parameters, and usage relative to alternatives.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for the single parameter 'tweet_id', and the tool description provides no additional semantic information about this parameter. It doesn't explain what a tweet_id is, where to find it, or its format, leaving the parameter meaning unclear despite the schema defining its type.

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 'Retweet a tweet' clearly states the verb ('retweet') and resource ('a tweet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'unretweet' or explain the relationship between retweeting and other tweet actions like quoting or favoriting.

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 like 'quote_tweet' or 'favorite_tweet', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs) or constraints. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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