list_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'public' posts, hinting at accessibility, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it describe pagination, return format, or any potential side effects. For a 10-parameter listing tool, this is a significant gap.

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 long, front-loaded with the core action, and avoids redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise while still conveying the essential 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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what the response contains, how pagination works, or any nuances of the filtering. The high complexity demands far more context than provided.

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 provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 10 parameters. The description's generic mention of 'filters and sorting' adds no meaningful detail beyond what the schema already specifies. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: browsing public posts with filters and sorting. It uses a specific verb ('browse') and resource ('public Resonate posts'). While it doesn't explicitly name siblings, 'browse' implies a listing/filtering function distinct from 'search_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 gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to find trending, recent, or popular posts.' This provides context for when to use it, but it does not mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as when to use 'search_posts' instead.

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