discover

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the tool returns summaries and not items, which is useful. However, it does not declare whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or other side effects. Given the lack of annotations, this is insufficient for full transparency.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and return type, followed by filter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff. Ideal conciseness.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters, no required fields, and an output schema exists, the description covers essential aspects. However, it lacks information about pagination, result ordering, default behavior when no filters are applied, and any limits. With output schema present, the burden is reduced, but additional context would improve completeness for a browse tool.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'query' is a title substring, 'post_type' has two specific values ('世界苦茶' or '台海危機ALERT'), and dates are in ISO YYYY-MM-DD format. This adds meaningful semantics to all four parameters. Minor improvement could be a more explicit mapping to schema property names.

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's function ('Browse the post catalogue') and its return type ('post-level summaries, not items'). It also enumerates the filtering options, providing specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_post or list_recent, though the filtering scope implies a distinct use case.

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 recommends using at least one filter ('At least one filter recommended') which is a usage hint. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings, nor does it mention prerequisites or when not to use it. The guidance is minimal and implicit.

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