List Scheduled Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the schema documents cursor pagination, so the description only restates scope. It adds nothing about what happens with an empty result set, whether drafts are excluded, or any publish-state edge cases (e.g. failed schedules).

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 sentence that defines scope with zero redundancy or filler. Nothing to trim.

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?

An output schema exists and the input schema is fully documented, so return values and parameter behavior need not be repeated. The remaining gap is that the meaning of 'scheduled' (which scheduling states are included) and the relationship to list_posts are left unstated.

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 100%, including the page default-resolution rule and the next_cursor semantics, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter guidance beyond what is already documented, which is the expected baseline here.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (a Page's posts) plus a precise filter (scheduled but not yet published). Clear enough to distinguish from list_posts, though it never names that sibling explicitly and leaves the distinction to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter: use this when you want scheduled-but-unpublished posts rather than all posts. No explicit when-to-use/when-not and no named alternative such as list_posts or get_post, so the agent must infer sibling selection.

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