list_own_publications

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

The description declares the tool as read-only, which is a key behavioral trait. It also specifies the authentication requirement (Medium integration token). Without annotations, it effectively discloses the essential behaviors, though it lacks details on potential limitations like pagination or rate limits.

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 two sentences, with the most critical information (read-only nature) placed first. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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 (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, return format, usage recommendation, and auth requirement, leaving no obvious gaps for the agent.

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 zero parameters, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description adds no parameter-specific info, but the baseline for no parameters is 4. The description compensates by explaining the return value and usage context.

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 publications where the user can publish as editor/writer, and specifies the return format (id + name pairs). It distinguishes from siblings like list_posts and list_responses, which serve different purposes.

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 explains that the id can be used with publish_post's publication_id, providing actionable guidance. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but no other sibling tool lists publications, so the context is sufficient.

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