Get User Posts

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so no mutation concern. The description adds useful behavioral details like the max_posts limit (default 50) and the presence of a progress-reporting context (ctx), but it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or handling of private accounts. This adds some value but is not rich, fitting the lower bar set by 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 well-structured with a one-sentence summary, Args section, and Returns section. Every sentence is informative, no filler. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters, and the front-loaded summary gives immediate clarity.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the output schema exists and covers return values, and annotations cover safety, the description is fairly complete. It includes parameter details and return structure. However, it lacks usage guidance and has a minor ctx parameter mismatch, preventing a perfect score.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It does: username is described as Instagram username with examples, and max_posts is explained as the maximum to retrieve. However, it also lists 'ctx' as an arg that is not present in the input schema, which is a minor inconsistency but does not detract from the value added for the actual parameters.

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 clearly states the tool gets an Instagram user's posts with structured data. The verb 'get' and resource 'posts' are specific and match the tool name, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_reels or get_user_stories, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like get_user_reels or get_user_stories, nor does it specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. The only context is the tool name and sibling list, which are not enough for explicit usage guidance.

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