Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by labeling this an 'interactive list' / 'dashboard', which signals a UI-style presentation rather than a plain data response, and lists the post fields shown.

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 with no redundant wording. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance with the sibling comparison appears right after, making the description compact and easy to parse.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with a complete input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering mutation safety, the description fully covers what an agent needs to decide when to invoke it and how it behaves. No critical gaps remain.

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 100%, and both the 'limit' and 'status' parameters are already well-described in the input schema. The description only restates that status filtering is optional, adding no new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('posts'), and specifies the content (status, schedule, channels). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling 'list_posts' by positioning itself as the visual/interactive view, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when the user wants to see their posts as an interactive dashboard') and names the alternative ('prefer over list_posts for a visual view'). This gives an agent a clear decision rule between view_posts and list_posts.

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