what2post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is transparent. The description adds useful context about what is listed (goals with progress) and the filtering option, but does not disclose details like pagination behavior or what 'progress' entails. This is adequate 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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes the only optional behavior. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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 (2 optional params, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential purpose and one filtering option, though mentioning the limit behavior would be a minor improvement. Overall, it is sufficiently 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 coverage, the description compensates partially by explaining the status parameter with concrete examples ('active, completed'). However, the 'limit' parameter is not described at all, leaving less than half of the parameters fully clarified. The description adds some meaning but not enough to fully cover the 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 a specific action ('List'), a specific resource ('your growth goals'), and provides additional scope details ('with progress') and optional filtering by status. It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_my_growth and get_my_profile_stats.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The optional status filter is an intra-tool option, not a cross-tool selection guideline, and no exclusions or preferred contexts 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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the default profile behavior and the days_back time window, which are not in the annotations and provide useful operational context.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description is complete: it states the purpose, time range, profile targeting, and default behavior. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 0%, but the description compensates by explicitly referencing both parameters: 'days_back' in 'over the last days_back days' and 'profile_id' in 'Defaults to your primary profile when profile_id is omitted.' This adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles and defaults.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Get follower-growth statistics' and scopes it to 'one LinkedIn profile' over 'the last days_back days.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_my_goals and get_my_profile_stats, which cover different metrics.

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 by stating the time range and profile selection, including the default behavior when profile_id is omitted. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough that an agent can infer when to use it.

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, and the description adds the subscription requirement and default profile behavior, which are useful constraints. It does not mention return format or rate limits, but the core behavioral context is covered.

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?

Three short sentences are front-loaded with the main action, followed by essential parameter and prerequisite info. No irrelevant or repetitive content.

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 one-parameter read tool, the description conveys the purpose, key parameter behavior, and a prerequisite. The absence of an output schema makes the description the sole source for return expectations, but 'engagement statistics and recent posts' gives a reasonable high-level picture, though it lacks detail on structure.

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 description explains the profile_id parameter by stating that omitting it defaults to the primary profile, giving semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type/default. It doesn't specify the ID format, but for one optional parameter, this is adequate.

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 retrieves engagement statistics and recent posts for the user's own LinkedIn profile. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource, and the mention of 'my' distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on goals, growth, or posts only.

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 notes the default behavior when profile_id is omitted and requires an active subscription, giving users clear context for when the tool applies. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like list_my_posts, which could overlap in the 'posts' area, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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 indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to restate safety. It adds useful context: 'Requires an active subscription' and the scoping behavior. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent set expectations. No contradiction detected.

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 core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds valuable information (ordering, scoping, subscription requirement).

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 simplicity and presence of an output schema, the description covers necessary operational context: what it lists, ordering, scoping, and prerequisites. It doesn't explain 'synced' but that is minor. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains profile_id's effect ('Scoped to one profile when profile_id is given'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, the limit parameter is not explained at all, leaving a gap. Partial compensation warrants a mid score.

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 'List your synced LinkedIn posts, newest first.' The verb 'List' and resource 'synced LinkedIn posts' are specific, and the ordering is mentioned. It distinguishes from siblings (goals, growth, profile stats) by focusing on 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 provides usage context: 'Scoped to one profile when profile_id is given, otherwise all your profiles.' This tells the agent when to use profile_id vs. not, but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since siblings are different resource types, the context is sufficient for clear selection.

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