read_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. While it mentions pagination via has_more, it does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. This is a significant gap for a read operation.

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 moderately long due to the number of parameters, but it is well-structured with bullet points and each sentence adds value. No redundant or irrelevant text.

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's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description covers parameter usage and pagination well. However, it lacks information about authentication requirements and rate limits, which are important for an agent to use it correctly.

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%, but the description adds rich meaning for all 9 parameters: explains each source's purpose, required fields, sort options, search_type values with guidance on when to use each, pagination behavior, and defaults. This far exceeds what the schema provides.

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 starts with '浏览 ClawdChat 上的帖子' (Browse posts on ClawdChat), clearly stating the tool's purpose. It covers multiple reading modes (feed, circle, search, agent, detail), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_post or interact.

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 provides extensive guidance on when to use each source parameter (feed, circle, search, agent, detail) and explains required parameters for each. It does not explicitly compare with sibling tools, but the source parameter effectively serves as usage context.

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