post_get_all_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation ('get') and mentions pagination, but does not explicitly state it is read-only, side-effect-free, or disclose authentication or rate limits. Adequate but not explicit.

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 concise sentences with front-loaded purpose. No wasted words. Efficiently communicates core functionality and filtering/pagination.

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?

No output schema, so description should hint at return structure. It mentions 'activity feed' but not the fields or format. Given moderate complexity and sibling tools, it is minimally adequate but could specify that a list of posts is returned.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains three parameters (keywords, type, group_id as filters) and pagination via max_id, but omits pagesize, project_id, and post_filter_share. Partially helpful but incomplete.

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 retrieves the company-wide visible activity feed (‘获取全公司可见的动态流’), specifying the verb (get) and resource (activity feed), and distinguishes it from siblings that target specific scopes like group or user posts.

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 implies usage for company-wide feed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like post_get_my_posts or post_get_group_posts. There are no when-not or alternative suggestions.

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