List the brand's own Bluesky posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes beyond them by disclosing that Bluesky has no impression/view lexicon, that counts have no denominator, and that reposts are not the brand's own creative. It also notes unknown filters are refused by name, and states the tool is read-only and costs 0 credits. This adds behavioral context well beyond 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?

The description is long but each sentence carries meaningful information. The AT-URI source statement is front-loaded, which is immediately useful. The density of caveats (reposts, no impressions, filter behavior) justifies the length, though a shorter version could have preserved the key decisions. Overall it is well-structured and efficient.

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?

Without an output schema, the description lists the return row fields (text, date, web URL, live counts, repost/reply flag) and explains the no-engagement-rate limitation. It also covers filter semantics, the reading cost, and the dependency of other tools on its AT-URI. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears missing.

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 input schema documents all three parameters (limit, cursor, filter) with descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by reiterating the filter options and clarifying that an unknown filter is refused by name, and by implying the default limit. It does not reproduce schema details, but adds a small amount of extra semantic guidance.

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 opens by precisely scoping the tool to the brand's OWN recent Bluesky posts, newest first. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like bluesky_post_metrics and delete_bluesky_post, and states that it is the source of the at:// AT-URI needed by those tools. This gives an agent a clear, distinct understanding of what this tool does.

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?

It names the dependent sibling tools (bluesky_post_metrics, delete_bluesky_post) and explains the exact use case: obtaining AT-URIs for past work after a post was published in a previous conversation. It also gives guidance on reposts (must not be reported as the brand's own performance) and notes that Bluesky publishes no impression counts, so no engagement rate can be computed. This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to.

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