list_page_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. It states this is a listing operation and enumerates the returned aspects (message, date, link, counters), which implies read-only behavior. It does not describe ordering, pagination, token requirements, or whether unpublished posts are excluded, which would add useful behavioral context beyond what the schema shows.

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?

A single, front-loaded French sentence conveys the primary action, the resource scope, and the expected result fields with no unnecessary words. It is concise and fits the tool's simple nature.

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?

The operation is simple, an output schema exists to describe the return shape, and the one-line description captures the core purpose. However, the lack of any guidance on limit semantics and the absence of explicit alternative-routing make the overall context only partially complete, especially given that annotations and parameter descriptions are absent.

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 compensate for both parameters. It only implies page_id through 'd'une Page'; the limit parameter is not described at all, including its default behavior or meaning. The description adds little meaning beyond what the bare schema properties already expose.

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 ('Liste') and resource ('publications récentes d'une Page'), with a parenthetical of fields returned. It clearly identifies a read-only listing operation, and the phrase 'd'une Page' implicitly differentiates it from siblings like get_post or list_pages. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related tools such as get_post, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need recent posts of a Page. It gives no explicit alternatives or exclusions, such as 'for a single post use get_post' or 'for comments use list_post_coments'. The usage context is clear enough, but the agent is left to infer the boundary against siblings.

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