reddit-mcp-server

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the specific return fields (titles, scores, comments) and parameter defaults, which are helpful. No contradictions or missing critical behavior.

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 very concise, front-loading the purpose and return fields, then listing parameters in a clear bullet-like format. Every sentence 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?

Given the simplicity (3 params, no output schema, good annotations), the description covers the essentials. It could mention that posts come from the subreddit's front page or that results are limited, but overall 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: subreddit (with example), sort (with options and default), and max_results (with default). This adds meaning beyond the schema types.

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 'Get posts from a subreddit', which is a specific action on a resource. It also lists the returned fields (titles, scores, comments). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'search_reddit', relying on the name and context.

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 when needing posts from a specific subreddit, but does not provide explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. The mention of a sibling tool without comparison is a missed opportunity.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns titles, scores, comments, and content, which is useful behavioral context. However, it omits details like pagination, result ordering, or any rate limits, so it does not fully leverage the absence of annotation constraints.

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: a one-line purpose followed by a brief args list. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the core purpose.

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 has 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema, the description covers what each parameter does and what the output contains (titles, scores, etc.). It does not explain output format (e.g., list vs single item) or sorting, but is largely complete for its complexity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds essential meaning: provides examples for 'query' and 'subreddit', and specifies a default for 'max_results'. While it does not describe all constraints (e.g., max_results maximum), it significantly compensates for the lack of schema 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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Reddit posts'), and clarifies the return value ('titles, scores, comments, and content'). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_subreddit' by focusing on post-level search rather than subreddit-level info.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'get_subreddit'. The description implies usage for searching posts, but does not explain scenarios where one is preferred over the other.

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