x_api_get_spaces_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states 'Risk: read-only,' lists required OAuth scopes, describes the scoped credential resolution logic, gives the expected response shape, common failure modes, and a safety warning about sensitive account data. This is comprehensive and goes well beyond a simple read-only note.

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 long but divided into labeled sections (Use when, Do not use when, Risk, Required permissions, etc.), which aids parsing. The only redundancy is the 'Use when: Get Space Posts' line, which restates the first sentence; otherwise, each section adds useful information.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description provides a thorough operational picture: it covers permissions, environment-selection behavior, parameter formats, expected response shape, failure conditions, safety, and a concrete usage example. It does not explain all authentication parameters, but for a GET endpoint this is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema is 8 parameters with 0% coverage in the description, so the description must compensate. It explicitly describes id and max_results formats, and the environment-selection behavior explains scopeTenantId, scopeUserId, scopeAccountId, and credentialKey. However, it does not explain authorizationKey or the preferredAuthType choices, leaving a minor gap.

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 opens with 'Get Space Posts,' which is a specific verb and resource, and the example clarifies it operates on a space id. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from semantically close sibling tools like x_api_get_spaces_by_id or x_api_get_posts_by_id, so it lacks in-text sibling differentiation.

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 'Use when' clause merely repeats the tool name ('Get Space Posts'), providing no additional context. The 'Do not use when' clause offers some useful exclusions (prefer x_schema_discovery or x_query_suggestion for exploration, and auth/config tools for setup), but it fails to mention when to choose this over other space- or post-related API tools.

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