get_featurebase_posts

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that posts are returned in order requested and that missing slugs are returned in a 'notFound' field rather than throwing. No mention of auth, rate limits, or destructive behavior. Given read-like name, transparency is good but not exhaustive.

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 main description is a single sentence with no waste. Parameter descriptions are thorough yet concise. Every sentence adds value, effectively balancing brevity with necessary detail.

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?

No output schema. Description covers ordering and notFound behavior but does not detail the full return structure (e.g., which fields each post object contains). While sibling 'get_featurebase_post' may document shape, the tool alone leaves some gaps.

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 the description adds significant meaning: for 'slugs', it explains ordering and error handling; for 'include_content', it clarifies when to enable and the trade-off with excerpt length. This exceeds baseline expectations.

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 explicitly states the action 'Batch-fetch', the resource 'posts', and the method 'by slug array'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_featurebase_post' (singular) and 'list_featurebase_posts' (likely without slugs).

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives mentioned for tool selection. The 'include_content' parameter provides usage guidance (e.g., 'Off by default — the 800-char excerpt is usually enough... Turn on only when you need the full body'), but overall guidance is minimal.

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