ig_media_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and mentions engagement counts, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, recency window, authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether results are limited to the authenticated account.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded. It is under-specified rather than verbose, so conciseness itself is strong.

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?

For a simple list tool, the description conveys what is returned at a high level (posts plus like/comment counts), but it omits essential context: no annotations, no output schema, and no documentation for the only parameter. An agent would have to guess about pagination, limits, and result scope.

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 tool has one optional parameter, limit, whose schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the limit parameter at all, so its meaning, default, maximum, and effect on results are completely undocumented.

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 clear resource and content: recent posts on the account, including like and comment counts. It is distinguishable from a media-specific checker like ig_check_media, but it does not explicitly position itself against analytics or comment-focused siblings such as ig_insights or ig_comments.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state when not to use it. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'recent posts.'

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