skool_list_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature, the returned fields (id, name, title, snippet, counts, author), and the 'recent' scoping. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering details, but for a simple list tool this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The core verb and scope are front-loaded, and the return format and cross-tool hint are placed efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough: the purpose, return fields, and a pointer to the next step. The missing explanation of `limit` is the main deficiency, but the overall context is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description does not mention the `limit` parameter at all. While 'limit' is a common concept, the tool fails to explain its effect, bounds, or default behavior beyond the schema's default value. This is a notable gap given the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('posts in your community feed'), and explicitly notes it is read-only. It also distinguishes itself from skool_get_post by clarifying that this returns a snippet, not full posts. The purpose is unmistakable and differentiates from the main sibling.

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 explicitly tells the agent to use the returned `name` with skool_get_post for full posts, providing a clear routing condition. It does not address other siblings (e.g., list_members, list_courses), but given the post-specific context, the guidance is sufficient for the common case.

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