Get publish log

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description contributes real value by disclosing the record granularity ('attempt-by-attempt') and the exact columns returned, which tells the agent to expect multiple rows per post. It stops short of ordering, pagination, retention window, or what an empty log means.

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?

A single front-loaded fragment with the resource first and the returned fields second — zero padding. It is telegraphic rather than sentence-complete, but every word carries information and nothing is wasted.

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 one required parameter, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials of what the tool returns. Gaps remain around result ordering, volume per post, and how to interpret a post with no attempts — details an agent needs to use the output sensibly, though the simple shape limits how costly those gaps are.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single postId parameter carries no description or format hint. The phrase 'for a post' weakly ties the parameter to a post identifier, but does not clarify whether it accepts the internal ID, a slug, or a channel-scoped ID. One parameter at zero coverage keeps this at a minimum-viable 3.

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 names a specific resource ('attempt-by-attempt log for a post') and enumerates the fields it exposes (channel, attempt, status, error), so an agent knows this is a per-attempt publishing audit trail rather than a general post lookup. However, it never explicitly contrasts with close siblings like postfjord_get_post or postfjord_get_analytics, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus postfjord_get_post (post state) or postfjord_get_analytics (performance metrics). No prerequisites, no mention of what a caller should do with failed attempts. Usage must be guessed entirely from the name and returned fields.

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