get_upcoming_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 behavioral disclosure. It only states a get operation with no mention of side effects, read-only nature, pagination, filtering behavior, or whether only published drafts are included. The description is too terse to provide meaningful behavioral transparency beyond the obvious 'get' implication.

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 sentence with zero filler, presenting the core action upfront. The wording is efficient and immediately clear. It earns its place by conveying the essential purpose without redundant details.

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 3 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return format, the meaning of limit and platform, or edge cases like empty results. The description is adequate for a simple lookup but leaves critical gaps for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'days' parameter via 'upcoming N days', but does not clarify the 'limit' parameter (pagination?) or 'platform' (filter by platform? expected values?). The description adds only partial value for a subset of parameters, leaving the agent guessing about the others.

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 action (get), the resource (scheduled posts from the content calendar), and the scope (upcoming N days). It's specific enough to differentiate from most siblings, though it doesn't explicitly reference alternatives. The name and description together unambiguously convey the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools like schedule_content. The description is purely declarative without usage context, leaving the agent to infer when it's appropriate.

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