agent_post_to_channel

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

The description adds behavioral context by stating that the message is encrypted with the channel key (NaCl secretbox) and signed. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, error conditions, or idempotency. With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and while it provides some useful info, it is not comprehensive.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every part adds value, but it could be slightly expanded to include a brief usage hint.

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 output schema and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value, the effect of the reply_to parameter, or potential error scenarios. More details would help the agent use the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'Post' and the resource 'an encrypted message to a channel', and mentions encryption and signing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like agent_send_message, which may also post messages.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as agent_send_message or agent_create_channel. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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