docswrite-list-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 of behavioral disclosure. It does state the ordering (newest first), the statuses included, and the return item fields (id, title, connection, status, dates, url, error). However, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it cover pagination behavior, auth requirements, 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope, while the second efficiently lists the return fields. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's list of return fields (id, title, connection, status, dates, url, error) is valuable and necessary. It also covers ordering and included statuses. It omits pagination and filter behavior, but the schema documents those parameters well. For a 10-parameter list tool, the description is largely complete.

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 90%, so the input schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level meaning or syntax beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the organization's posts across all connections, newest first: published, scheduled, drafts, in-flight and failed publishes.' This clearly scopes the tool to listing posts with a defined ordering and status set. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like docswrite-get-post-status or docswrite-list-connections.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when to prefer docswrite-get-post-status or other siblings. Usage is left entirely to inference from the tool name.

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