threads_get_posts

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

No annotations provided, and description gives no behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits, ordering, or result structure). Schema reveals pagination cursors, but description fails to mention that responses are paginated.

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?

Single sentence is very concise but sacrifices informativeness. Could be improved by adding minimal context like 'paginated' or 'for authenticated user' without becoming verbose.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and description omits crucial context such as whose posts, pagination, and default ordering. For a tool with 5 optional parameters, the description is insufficient.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. Description does not add any additional semantic context for parameters (e.g., usage tips, allowed values) beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Description states 'get a list of published Threads posts' but does not specify whose posts (e.g., authenticated user's? any public?). Sibling tools like threads_get_user_threads and threads_search_posts imply different scopes, but this description lacks differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as threads_get_user_threads, threads_search_posts, or threads_get_post. Agent cannot determine appropriate context from description alone.

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