list_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. The description only states deprecated status and alias relationship but discloses no behavioral traits such as what it returns (posts list), pagination behavior, or any side effects. The out-of-band deprecation is useful but insufficient for a tool the agent might still invoke.

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 extremely short (one sentence), which earns conciseness, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently complete. The deprecated alias note is brief and front-loaded, yet it doesn't function as an adequate description.

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?

There is an output schema present, but the description still needs to convey what the tool does. For a tool with 3 parameters and no clear functional description, the completeness is poor. The deprecation note redirects to content.list.v1, which is helpful context, but the tool itself is left undefined.

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 33% (only 1 of 3 params has description text). The description adds zero parameter information, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap. Params like lang, status, and per_page are self-evident in naming, but the description offers nothing beyond what the schema sparse descriptions provide.

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 is a single sentence: 'DEPRECATED alias for content.list.v1.' It tells the agent this is deprecated and an alias for another tool, but does not state what the tool actually does (list content/posts). The verb 'list' and noun 'posts' in the name imply the function, but the description itself fails to describe the purpose aside from deprecated alias status.

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 instructs that this is deprecated and implies the agent should prefer content.list.v1, which names an alternative. However, it gives no guidance on WHEN to use this tool versus any alternatives beyond the deprecation note. There's no context about use cases for listing posts or when not to use this.

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