list_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly signals a read-only listing operation and describes filtering, pagination, and the returned data fields. It does not mention ordering, default pagination limits, or auth needs, but the core behavioral profile is transparent enough for a list endpoint.

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 convey purpose, filtering, pagination, and return contents without filler. The main action is front-loaded, and every clause adds information.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is helpful but incomplete. It states return fields and filtering, yet it does not explain pagination behavior (defaults, max limit), total counts, ordering, or the complete status enum. An agent could call the tool correctly, but some operational details are left to inference.

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 50%; status and workspace_id are described, but limit and offset are not. The description adds the 'pagination' concept and names some status values, but it omits enum members like pending_approval and cancelled and does not explain limit/offset defaults or semantics. This is minimally adequate but not fully compensatory.

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 verb and resource: 'List posts in a workspace.' It also identifies key capabilities (filtering by status, pagination) and return fields, making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_post_deliveries, but the resource is distinct enough.

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, nor does it mention exclusions or when a sibling like list_post_deliveries would be more appropriate. It implies a list/filter use case but leaves routing decisions to the agent.

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