List posts

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, covering the safety and mutability profile. The description adds the UTC timezone constraint and the status scope ('scheduled or published'), which is useful context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose pagination, result ordering, or limits; with annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The core scope (date range, statuses) is front-loaded, followed by the usage hint.

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 a simple 3-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, scope, and a usage hint. It could be improved by noting pagination or return format, but for this complexity level it is sufficient.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description confirms the date range and UTC basis but adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: lists posts, constrained to scheduled or published status within a date range. This is clear. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like postsider_get_post or postsider_find_slot beyond the implicit list-vs-single distinction; a more explicit contrast would earn a 5.

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?

Offers implicit usage guidance: 'Useful for reviewing the content calendar before scheduling more.' This suggests a context but does not say when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it name siblings or state exclusions.

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