post_get_my_posts

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without disclosing read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. The agent gains no additional behavioral insights beyond the action verb.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no waste. However, it lacks structured elements like usage context or parameter hints that would improve its utility.

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 retrieval tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain return format, pagination behavior, or how 'max_id' functions. The sibling tools suggest a complex environment, but this description provides minimal context.

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%, yet the description does not explain the two parameters ('max_id' and 'pagesize'). The agent cannot infer their purpose or format from the description, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 current user's own published updates, using a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('当前用户自己发布的动态'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'post_get_all_posts' and 'post_get_user_posts' by explicitly limiting to the user's own content.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'post_get_user_posts' or 'post_get_all_posts'. It does not mention prerequisites, pagination context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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