threads_get_my_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. While the 'get' prefix implies a safe operation, this is not explicitly stated.

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 that conveys the core purpose and a practical usage tip. It is well-structured, front-loaded with the primary function, and avoids unnecessary 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?

For a tool of this complexity, the description is incomplete. It omits explanations of the parameters, does not describe the output format or structure, and lacks information about potential edge cases or error handling. The user is left to infer important details from the schema alone.

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 description does not explain the meaning or purpose of the 'limit' or 'user_id' parameters. The schema provides some constraints (e.g., default, min, max) but the description adds no semantic value, leaving users to guess how these parameters affect the returned posts.

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 clearly states the tool returns recent posts with permalinks, which identifies the core function. It also hints at its use case after publishing to verify outcomes, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools such as threads_get_post_insights or threads_create_post.

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 suggests calling after publishing to confirm the post went out, providing a concrete scenario. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, leaving room for ambiguity.

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