list_posting_slots

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully carried by structured data. The description adds only that these are Settings-saved values (implicitly static config, not live-computed), but says nothing about return format, ordering, or pagination.

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?

A single short parenthetical sentence with no filler and the key content (days, time, time zone) front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification.

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?

With no output schema, the description does partially sketch the return shape (days, time, time zone), which is useful. However, for a read tool whose sibling get_next_free_slot overlaps in topic, it lacks the routing and return-format detail needed to be fully self-sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate on the input side.

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 is a noun fragment ('The posting times saved in Settings') rather than a verb+resource statement; the agent leans on the tool name to infer that it lists slots. It also doesn't distinguish this from the closely related sibling get_next_free_slot, which returns computed availability rather than saved configuration.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite get_next_free_slot being an obvious near-neighbor an agent could confuse this with. The phrase 'saved in Settings' hints at context but does not tell the agent when to pick this tool.

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