substack_get_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but adds minimal behavioral context. 'List published posts' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose traits like pagination, sorting, error handling, or rate limits. It lacks details on what 'published' entails (e.g., date ranges, status) and the return format, making it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 with 'List published posts'—a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the purpose without waste. Every word earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (e.g., post details, format), behavioral aspects like ordering or pagination, or error conditions. For a tool that likely returns a list of posts, more context is needed to guide an agent effectively, making it minimally adequate but with significant gaps.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, as it doesn't mention the 'limit' parameter or other filtering options. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 'List published posts' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('published posts'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'substack_get_drafts' by specifying 'published' rather than 'drafts'. However, it doesn't specify scope (e.g., all posts vs. filtered) or differentiate from potential other listing tools, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions (e.g., not for drafts), or comparisons to siblings like 'substack_get_drafts' for unpublished content. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, leaving gaps for an agent.

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