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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields and implies read-only behavior via 'Fetch', but it does not mention error handling, authentication needs, or rate limits—common behavioral details for a fetch 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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, and efficiently includes return-value highlights. No fluff or redundancy.

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 simple tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return values. It falls short of 5 by omitting error behavior and a complete field list, but it is sufficient for basic invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already explains the comment_id format including the t1_ prefix. The description's 'by id' adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('single Reddit comment'), and identifier ('by id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like reddit_get_post by targeting comments specifically.

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 context is clear: use this when you need a single comment by its id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tools serve different resources, making the intended use obvious.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return structure ('items' with 'kind' and 'meta' with pagination fields), which is helpful. However, it does not mention permissions (likely moderator-only), error conditions, or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by return format. Every word is useful, with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and return format, but lacks critical context about moderator authorization and the fact that this is a moderation queue. With no output schema or annotations, this omission could mislead an agent into assuming it works like a public listing tool. The pagination fields are mentioned but not fully explained.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters, including enum constraints and pagination semantics. The description's mention of 'meta (limit, has_more, next_cursor)' reinforces the role of 'limit' and 'after' but adds no new information beyond the 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?

The description uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource: 'posts and comments in a subreddit that were edited by their author after posting.' This distinguishes it from siblings like reddit_get_modqueue or reddit_get_spam, which target different moderation queues.

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 usage for retrieving edited posts/comments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites like moderator access. The context is clear from the purpose, but no direct exclusions or alternative references are provided.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully reveals the return JSON structure with items and meta including pagination cursors. However, it does not mention permission requirements (e.g., moderator access), rate limits, or explicitly confirm that this is a read-only 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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes the return format in a compact way. Every word earns its place, with no redundant phrasing or filler.

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 (5 params, 1 required) and full schema coverage, the description provides adequate context by stating the return structure and pagination cursor. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by describing the top-level JSON fields, though it stops short of detailing item fields or error behaviors.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all five parameters, so the description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema states. The description's mention of 'recent' aligns with the limit default, but provides no additional syntax or format details.

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 lists recent moderation actions in a subreddit, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_modqueue or get_spam by focusing on historical actions taken, not pending items.

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 this tool (to view moderation history) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references. Without naming siblings like reddit_get_modqueue, an agent must infer the distinction from the wording 'actions taken'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the JSON return format (items with kind, meta with limit/has_more/next_cursor), pagination via next_cursor, and item kinds. It also mentions the related action tools, providing useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then describes the return format and next steps. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must provide context. It covers purpose, return shape, pagination, and follow-up actions. A minor gap is not explicitly stating the moderator permission requirement, but it's implied by 'mod queue'.

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 schema already describes all 4 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information, only referencing 'next_cursor' and 'fullname' in context, which doesn't significantly enhance the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 states 'List posts and comments awaiting moderator review in a subreddit's mod queue', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the 'mod queue' as a distinct Reddit feature, even though related queue tools exist.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (mod queue) and suggests a follow-up action: 'Use reddit_approve/reddit_remove with an item's fullname to act on it.' It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives like reddit_get_reports, but the mod queue context implies a combined view.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns JSON with post and comments, and clarifies nesting behavior ('top-level comments include one nested level of replies'). This adds useful behavioral context beyond a simple 'fetch post' statement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Fetch', no filler. The key detail about comment nesting is included efficiently.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description provides a high-level return format ('Returns JSON with post and comments') and comment nesting detail. For a 3-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, this is adequate. It doesn't mention error cases or pagination, but those are less critical for a simple fetch.

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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions). The description adds minor context by clarifying 'by id' and that comments are included, but the schema already documents post_id, comment_sort, and comment_limit fully. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Fetch a Reddit post (submission) by id along with its comments', which is a specific verb+resource+scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reddit_get_comment (which fetches a comment) and reddit_list_posts (which lists posts).

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: when you need a post by ID with its comments. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like reddit_get_comment or mention alternatives, so it's clear context but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It reveals the return JSON structure (items with kind, num_reports, report_reasons; meta with pagination), and how to paginate using next_cursor. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but 'list' clearly implies a read-only operation, so the behavior is sufficiently transparent.

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 three sentences: first gives the core purpose, second describes the return format, third gives follow-up actions. Every sentence earns its place, is front-loaded with the main verb, and there is zero redundancy.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by detailing the return shape and pagination. It also provides next-step actions. Missing details like error conditions or auth requirements, but for a straightforward listing tool, the description is nearly complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-specific meaning; it only references the 'after' parameter indirectly via next_cursor, which is already described in the 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?

The description states 'List posts and comments in a subreddit that have been reported by users or AutoModerator' – a specific verb, resource, and scope that clearly distinguishes it from sibling moderation tools like get_modqueue or get_spam. It also names the form of returned items, reinforcing the purpose.

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 explains exactly what content is covered (reported posts/comments) and points to alternatives for managing reports (reddit_ignore_reports, reddit_approve/remove). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling listing tools, so it's clear when to use it but not when to choose a different list tool.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It explains the return format (JSON with items and meta, including pagination) but does not mention that this likely requires moderator permissions or other auth details. It adds some behavioral context but leaves gaps.

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?

Two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose, the second describes the response structure. Every word earns its place, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the JSON structure (items with kind, meta with limit/has_more/next_cursor). The tool is a simple list operation with well-documented parameters. Minor missing context like permission requirements prevents a 5.

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 100% coverage, with each parameter (only, after, limit, subreddit) already described. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific action: list posts and comments removed as spam, with the subreddit scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_modqueue, get_unmoderated, and get_reports by explicitly focusing on spam-removed content.

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?

It provides clear context that this is for viewing the spam queue, which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, falling short of the fullest guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with items and meta), the possible item types (post|comment), and pagination semantics (next_cursor). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but for a read-only queue listing, the provided behavioral details are substantial and useful.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and directly followed by the output structure. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the functional purpose, the nature of items returned, and the pagination mechanism. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately fills in return-value expectations. It is complete for an agent to invoke and interpret results without needing additional context.

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 value by explaining that 'after' relates to meta.next_cursor for pagination and that 'limit' has a default/max, reinforcing the schema. It also clarifies that the response meta includes 'limit', 'has_more', and 'next_cursor', linking parameters to returned data. This exceeds the baseline.

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 lists posts/comments not yet approved or removed, which distinguishes it from sibling moderation tools like get_modqueue, get_spam, and get_edited. It uses a specific verb (list) and names the resource (unmoderated queue in a subreddit), making its purpose unambiguous.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: when needing unmoderated content (not yet approved/removed). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the distinction from sibling tools is implicit. This provides clear context without going so far as to name other queue tools.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It notes the data is public profile info and mentions the return format (JSON with the user), which implies a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits. Sufficient for a simple fetch tool but not rich.

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 two short sentences that front-load the action and key output. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does a good job: it names the resource, lists key fields returned, and notes the return format. It is not exhaustive, but it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the username parameter (without the u/ prefix). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states the tool fetches a Reddit user's public profile info with specific data points (karma, account age, suspension status). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like reddit_get_post and reddit_get_comment, which target different resources.

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 the tool is for retrieving a user's profile, but it does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as reddit_list_user_activity. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools, so usage guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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

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. It does disclose the return format (JSON with name, date, note, days_left), but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or explicitly confirm the read-only nature of the 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 two concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action ('List users banned from a subreddit') and immediately provides useful output details.

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 simple list operation, the description combined with the full schema coverage is largely complete: it gives the purpose, parameters, and return fields. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings and omits behavioral caveats like pagination or permissions.

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 provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'users banned from a subreddit', which clearly identifies the tool's function. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reddit_list_muted and other moderation list tools.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as reddit_list_muted or other moderation tools. No exclusions or contextual conditions are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the return format (JSON with items containing name, mod_permissions, date), but does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, or pagination.

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?

Two sentences, wastes no words, and front-loads the action and result. Every phrase adds value.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose and return shape. However, it lacks details on the mod_permissions field structure or potential errors, making it slightly incomplete but generally adequate.

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 schema covers the single parameter 100%, and the description adds no further semantics beyond 'subreddit' being the target. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'moderators of a subreddit' and adds 'their permissions', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like reddit_list_posts or reddit_get_modlog.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is given, but the context of sibling mod tools implies this is for retrieving the moderator list. The description does not state when to prefer this over other related tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does mention the return format ('Returns JSON with items (name, date, note)'), but lacks details on ordering, pagination, authentication, or empty-result behavior. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and includes only the essential return-type detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 straightforward list tool, the description covers the core purpose and return shape, but lacks context about ordering, empty results, or any special behavior. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is adequate but not complete.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including constraints like the r/ prefix and limit bounds. The description adds the output field names but little parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the specific action: 'List users muted from sending modmail to a subreddit.' This is a clear verb+resource that distinguishes it from siblings like reddit_list_banned and reddit_list_moderators.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (identifying users muted from modmail), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. The contextual specificity is strong enough to infer proper usage.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It does reveal the return format (JSON with posts and meta) and pagination fields (limit, has_more, next_cursor), which is helpful. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid subreddit), rate limits, or authentication requirements. This is adequate but not rich enough for a higher score.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It lists the supported listing types and the return structure without any fluff. This is an exemplary concise structure.

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 (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential behavior: what it lists, the return format, and pagination. It could be more complete with usage guidance or error behavior, but the combination of the description and thorough schema makes it sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much parameter detail. It does mention listing types and pagination cursor, which slightly enriches the schema. However, most parameter semantics are already fully described in the schema, so the description adds marginal value. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists posts from a subreddit and enumerates the supported listing types (hot/new/top/rising/controversial). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like reddit_get_post (single post) and reddit_search (search across subreddits). The verb 'List' and resource 'posts from a subreddit' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 gives clear context about what the tool does (list posts from a subreddit) but does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusions. It implies usage for browsing a subreddit's posts but lacks guidance on when not to use it, such as searching for specific posts or retrieving a single post.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return format (JSON with items and meta) and pagination via next_cursor, which adds value. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the action ('List a user's recent posts and/or comments'), followed by the return format. No wasted words, and every sentence carries meaningful information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description provides the return structure with items and meta, covering pagination and item types. It does not cover authentication or error scenarios, but for a simple list tool with clear schema docs for parameters, this is nearly complete. The main missing piece is explicit usage context relative to siblings, which is already addressed under usage guidelines.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining the response structure (items with kind, meta with next_cursor) and how it relates to pagination parameters, going beyond a simple restatement of the 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?

The description clearly states 'List a user's recent posts and/or comments' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on user-specific activity rather than general feeds or profile lookups.

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 it is for retrieving a user's post/comment history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like reddit_get_user or reddit_list_posts. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('JSON with posts and meta (limit, has_more, next_cursor)') and pagination mechanism, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not cover rate limits or errors, but for a read-only search tool this is adequate.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return format. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return structure and mentions subreddit restriction. It does not explain all parameters, but the schema handles that. Pagination is hinted via meta.next_cursor. This is complete enough for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter described. The description only reinforces the subreddit restriction and pagination cursor (via meta.next_cursor), adding no new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('posts on Reddit'), clearly distinguishing from siblings like reddit_get_post (retrieving a single post) and reddit_list_posts (listing posts without a search query). It also mentions the optional subreddit restriction, adding 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 implies usage (searching posts, optionally within a subreddit) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling names suggest different purposes, but the description itself lacks direct guidance like 'use reddit_get_post for a single post'.

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