list_community_posts

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

With no annotations, the description bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful behavior via 'body previews' and 'force_refresh: Bypass cache and fetch fresh data', which go beyond the schema. However, it does not mention read-only guarantees, pagination, or any rate-limiting/auth requirements, leaving some transparency gap.

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 concise and well-structured: a single-sentence summary followed by a compact Args block. Every line earns its place, and the purpose statement is front-loaded. No fluff or repetition of schema types or defaults.

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 list operation with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. It covers the operation, return content hints (previews, comment counts), and the one custom behavior (bypass cache). It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but that gap is already captured under usage guidelines.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. All four parameters receive clear purpose definitions: subdomain is the Help Center hostname, topic_id filters posts, limit caps results, and force_refresh bypasses cache. This is a complete semantic layer that the schema entirely lacks.

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 operation (List community posts) and the resource (community posts), with additional detail about body previews and comment counts. It is easily distinguishable from siblings like get_community_post or list_community_topics by name and action, though it never explicitly names alternatives.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It relies entirely on the imperative 'List' to imply its use case, and does not mention the get_community_post sibling for single-post retrieval or list_community_topics for topics. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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