List Ghost posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the output shape ('concise' records) and the operational purpose (fetching IDs and updated_at for subsequent mutations). It omits pagination behavior and default 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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the operation stated first and the workflow rationale second. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema and annotations exist, so return values and safety need not be explained. However, with 11 undocumented filtering/pagination parameters, the description is thin for a tool of this complexity; it should at least hint at what can be filtered.

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% across 11 parameters, including filters like tag, search, status, author_id, and four date bounds. The description mentions no parameter at all, so an agent must infer filter semantics entirely from bare names and enum values. This fails to compensate for the coverage 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List concise Ghost post records.' The word 'concise' usefully signals this returns trimmed records rather than full post bodies, distinguishing it implicitly from get_post. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: 'Use this before updating or publishing to obtain exact IDs and updated_at values' gives a concrete workflow context and rationale. It does not state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like get_post, so no exclusion guidance.

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