Posting refill status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only, free' mostly restates structured data. The description does add useful behavioral content by disclosing what the payload contains, including the channels that cannot be posted to and why, but says nothing about freshness, caching, or how 'this profile' is resolved with zero parameters.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource, then a single enumeration sentence covering the returned fields and a two-word trailing note. Dense but every clause maps to a distinct piece of returned state; only the redundant 'Read-only' note could be cut.

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 return-value burden and does so thoroughly by listing on/off, dry-run mode, look-ahead days, render budget, next run, queue depth, and blocked channels. The one gap is that 'this profile' is never defined even though the tool takes no parameters.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The only implicit input, the current profile, is mentioned but not explained.

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 gives a specific verb (Show) and resource (the automatic posting refill for this profile) and enumerates the exact state it reports, so an agent can tell it is a status read rather than an action. It never names its obvious siblings (set_post_refill, run_post_refill), so the differentiation is inferable but not explicit.

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 guidance on when to call this versus set_post_refill (to configure) or run_post_refill (to trigger a fill). 'Read-only, free' is a cost/safety note, not usage guidance, and 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.