get_saved_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently reveals that posts are fetched newest-first, lacks scores/comments, filters thin titles, and does not support pagination—critical details for an agent's expectation management. This exceeds minimal disclosure and clearly states limitations.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence adds unique value: what it does, use cases, and key limitations. It is slightly run-on but avoids redundancy. A sentence or two could be combined for better scanning, but it remains efficient and direct.

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 read-only tool with only two optional parameters and an output schema (which presumably defines the return structure), the description covers all critical aspects: data scope, ordering, filtering edge cases, and unsupported features. It gives an agent sufficient context to decide when to call this tool and what to expect from the response.

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 coverage is 0%, meaning the description must add parameter understanding. While it explains the 'defined time period' concept matching time_filter and implies limit behavior via 'no pagination', it never names the parameters or adds detail about them (e.g., default limit=50, max=100). The description is vague regarding how limit behaves beyond absence of pagination, earning a baseline score given schema already documents the 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 fetches the user's saved Reddit posts for a defined time period, with a clear verb+resource combination. It even specifies use cases ('revisit, summarize, or triage') and distinguishes itself from typical feed tools by emphasizing its personal nature, effectively separating it from the sibling tools.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this to revisit, summarize, or triage content the user explicitly bookmarked') and notes limitations (no scores/comment counts, filtered thin titles, no pagination). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for when to use sibling tools, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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