list_post_cards

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains the default return format ({index,title}) and the effect of the detail parameter, which is useful for setting expectations. It does not mention error cases or auth, but for a simple read-only list operation, the key behavior is covered.

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 two sentences long, with no wasted words. The first sentence states the action and resources, the second provides key return behavior. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 the lack of an output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return format. It includes the relevant context about LinkedIn carousel/PDF generation. It could mention prerequisites like ensuring the post exists, but overall the description is complete for a list operation with two straightforward parameters.

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 schema covers both parameters, but the description adds significant meaning to the 'detail' parameter by specifying exactly what each level returns (default {index,title}, medium truncated body, full all fields). The 'postId' parameter is self-explanatory, so the description adds value beyond the schema.

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's function with a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('carousel cards attached to a post'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like edit_post_card and set_post_cards by focusing solely on listing, and adds the context that cards are used for LinkedIn carousel/PDF generation.

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 clear usage context by explaining that cards are used for LinkedIn carousel/PDF generation and by instructing the user on how to control output detail (short/medium/full). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance on detail levels exceeds a bare implied usage.

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