Posting refill status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, lowering the disclosure burden. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond annotations: the operation is free (cost implication), it surfaces dry-run preview mode, and it reports which channels are blocked and why. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured sentences that front-load the core purpose before listing the returned fields and the blocked-channels detail. Each enumerated item earns its place; slightly long but no wasted words.

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 carries the burden of explaining the return, and it does so thoroughly by listing every field an agent would care about. Simple zero-parameter invocation means nothing is missing for correct usage.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so the baseline is 4. The description compensates by detailing the output fields the call returns, which substitutes effectively for any parameter documentation.

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 names a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('the automatic posting refill for this brand') and enumerates the exact fields returned (on/off, dry-run mode, days ahead, render budget, next run, queued posts, blocked channels). This clearly distinguishes it from the mutating siblings set_post_refill and run_post_refill.

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 communicates read-only, free status-check context, which implies it is for inspecting configuration rather than changing or triggering it. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative tools (set_post_refill, run_post_refill) or give a contrastive condition for when to use them, leaving some routing to inference.

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