posts_list

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is a read-only list operation, that filters are optional, and that pagination is cursor-based, which is useful behavioral context. It does not detail return shape or sorting behavior, but those are partially visible in the schema.

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, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the key pagination behavior. Every phrase earns its place; there is no fluff.

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?

With nine parameters but full schema coverage, the description's summary of filters and cursor pagination is enough to orient an agent. It does not describe the output shape, though the after-cursor reference to pageInfo.endCursor in the schema partially fills that gap.

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 100%, so all parameters are already individually documented with types, defaults, and enums. The description groups filters as 'status, channel, and date range' but does not add materially new meaning beyond the 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?

Description states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('posts'), and organizational scope, plus the filter dimensions (status, channel, date range). This distinguishes it from singular post_get and mutating post_create siblings even without naming them.

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 makes clear this is the listing/filtering operation for posts in an organization, which gives sufficient context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of 5.

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