List posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a hard 500-row cap on most recent posts and the fan-out row semantics where one post per account shares a reel id and publish time. It doesn't address pagination beyond the cap, which is why this is a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, all front-loaded: returned fields first, then the cap, then the duplication semantics that determine how rows must be interpreted. Nothing is padding.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by naming the fields each row carries. For a read-only, single-optional-param tool with annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and there is a single optional workspaceId whose default ('active one') is already documented in the schema. The description's 'in the workspace' phrasing adds no syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Every post in the workspace') and enumerates the returned facets — captions, platforms, times, per-post metrics, account — which distinguishes it from siblings like get_post_analytics and list_slideshows. An agent can tell immediately this is the broad post inventory call.

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 by the scope statement ('every post ... published, scheduled, publishing and failed'), and the note that 'the scheduling tools treat that group as one unit' gestures at related siblings such as reschedule_posts and cancel_posts. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_post_analytics or other list tools, so guidance stays inferential.

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