List published posts in a Hashnode publication

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by specifying the return fields (id, title, slug, url, publishedAt, views, readTime, tags), the default ordering, and pagination cursor behavior. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the annotations without contradiction.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with a clear summary sentence, then lists parameters in an Args block and concludes with a Returns line. Every element earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 presence of a complete schema, and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the key contextual aspects: ordering, pagination via the 'after' cursor, allowed response formats, and the returned fields. There is no output schema, but the Returns line fills that gap. No additional information seems necessary.

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 already provides full descriptions for all four parameters (host, after, limit, response_format) with defaults and constraints. The description largely repeats this information (e.g., limit default 20 max 50, after as cursor). It does not introduce new semantic details beyond what the schema covers, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('published blog posts'), and adds scoping details ('in a publication', 'ordered by publish date (newest first)'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like hashnode_list_drafts by explicitly stating 'published'.

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 gives a clear context for when to use this tool (listing published posts) and mentions ordering/pagination. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling tool names (e.g., list_drafts) imply the distinction. This matches 'clear context, no exclusions'.

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