profile_posts

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 mentions the tool reads posts and specifies 'if public', which hints at access constraints, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what 'recent' means. This leaves significant gaps for safe and effective tool invocation.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Read profile posts') with qualifying details ('from recent', 'if public'). There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, fields), error conditions, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. For a read operation with potential access issues ('if public'), more context is needed to ensure reliable use by an AI 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description compensates by not introducing unnecessary complexity.

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 tool reads profile posts and specifies they are 'from recent' and 'if public', which provides some scope. However, it doesn't clearly distinguish this tool from siblings like 'profiles_details_by_id', 'get_group_posts', or 'pages_posts', leaving ambiguity about what makes this tool unique. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 minimal guidance by implying usage for recent, public profile posts, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'profile_details_by_url' or 'search_post'. No exclusions, prerequisites, or clear context for tool selection are provided, leaving the agent with little direction.

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