Posting refill status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description reinforces this with 'Read-only' and adds non-obvious behavior details: dry-run mode, render budget, next-run timing, queued count, and blocked channels with reasons. 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 front-loaded sentences cover the full status surface without filler. 'Read-only, free' earns its place because it affects tool selection.

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 must stand in for return values, and it does so by listing on/off, dry-run, fill-ahead days, budget, next run, queued posts, and blocked channels. This is complete for a zero-parameter read-only status tool.

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 schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter burden for the description. It still clarifies that the tool operates on 'this brand,' which is enough context given no input is required.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Show the automatic posting refill for this brand' and enumerates the exact status fields. It is clearly differentiated from siblings like set_post_refill and run_post_refill by focusing on status inspection.

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 'Show' framing and explicit 'Read-only, free' signal that this is an inspection tool, giving clear context for when to call it. It does not explicitly name set_post_refill or run_post_refill as alternatives, but the context makes the distinction clear.

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