List your Threads posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the output fields (id, text, media, permalink, timestamp) and the 'recent' qualifier, which is useful but not deep. It doesn't discuss pagination, ordering, or authentication beyond what the schema/annotations imply. With annotations present, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 sentences with zero fluff. The purpose and output fields are front-loaded, and the downstream use case is stated compactly. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple list tool with one parameter, the description covers the output fields and the reason to call it. It lacks any note on pagination beyond the limit parameter (which the schema covers) and doesn't mention prerequisites like having a connected brand, but those are implied. Overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only listing operation.

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 already documents the single 'limit' parameter with a range and default (1–50, default 15), and coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it doesn't rise above the baseline for tools with high schema coverage.

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 states the exact verb (list), resource (recent posts on the brand's connected Threads account), and the fields returned (id, text, media, permalink, timestamp). It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like list_threads_replies or search_threads_keyword by specifying the post-level listing scope and the downstream tools that need a post id.

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 explicitly states the primary use case — finding a post id for threads_insights, list_threads_replies, reply_to_thread, or delete_thread. This gives clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't mention exclusions (e.g., when not to use it) or explicitly contrast with search tools. Still, the guidance is both clear and actionable.

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