export_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully states the return type and included fields (ID, text, timestamp, URL), but it does not disclose that the operation is read-only, nor does it clarify what 'recent' means or mention potential rate limits.

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 compact and well organized, leading with the purpose, then providing the argument contract, then the return summary. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and return content. The only notable gaps are the ambiguity of 'recent' and the lack of stated read-only behavior, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema only provides a default value, while the description explains the parameter's meaning, default, and maximum. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage and gives an agent everything it needs to set the limit correctly.

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 action (export), the resource (recent posts), and the output format (flat JSON list), with explicit use cases like archiving, analysis, and vector embeddings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_recent_posts, which likely has a similar scope.

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 gives clear use-case context ('for archiving, analysis, or vector embeddings'), which implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly identify alternatives like list_recent_posts or get_post_details.

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