List posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, and an output schema exists, so the safety and return-shape burdens are covered elsewhere. The description still adds two pieces of context beyond structured data: the scope of results (the full queue across three lifecycle stages) and the required 'read' authorization scope.

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 with the content description front-loaded and the auth prerequisite second. Every clause is useful; the only minor weakness is that the trailing scope sentence reads as a fragment rather than a full usage statement.

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?

With an output schema covering return shape and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to convey what the tool returns and any call prerequisites, both of which it does. It omits default filtering (all statuses?) and ordering/pagination, which is a small gap for an optional-filter list tool.

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 single status parameter has 100% schema description coverage ('Keep only posts in this state.'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description never mentions the status filter, its enum values, or the default behavior when it is omitted, so it adds nothing here — baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 identifies the resource ('the post queue') and enumerates what it holds (proposed drafts, scheduled posts, published history), so the agent knows this returns a collection of posts across states. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like posts_get (single post) or the mutation tools posts_approve/posts_publish, but the 'queue/list' framing makes the distinction inferable.

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?

Usage is implied — browse the queue — and the description states a prerequisite ('Needs the read scope'), which is helpful. However, it never says when to choose this over posts_get for a single post, nor does it mention any exclusion or alternative, leaving routing to inference.

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