get_channel_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, rate limits, or what happens with large channels. The bare statement leaves the agent uninformed about runtime behavior.

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 concise, consisting of a single short sentence with no redundant content. It efficiently conveys the core action, though it may be too sparse to provide a complete picture.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the tool is not fully specified. The description does not mention return format, pagination behavior, or any edge cases. Given the tool's simplicity, this is a clear 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% (both channel_id and limit have descriptions), so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3.

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 'Get posts from a channel' clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (posts from a channel), which is distinct from sibling tools like get_thread, get_post, and search_posts. However, it does not add any scope details (e.g., sorting, filtering) that would further differentiate it.

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. There are no stated contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely declarative and offers no decision support.

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