dooray_posts

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and does so richly. It discloses pagination behavior, the risk of false negatives when searching the wrong project or only the first page, the fact that the matching post response contains the task body, and the resilient download strategy even in the face of AUTH_FORBIDDEN_ERROR.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose, URL parsing, pagination strategy, sibling-tool exclusions, and file-download handling. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description tells the agent what the matching response contains (task body, fileIdList) and how to interpret paginated results. It also accounts for edge cases like wrong project IDs, empty file lists, and auth errors, making the tool usable without additional documentation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema for projectId by explaining URL forms and legacy discovery, and it clarifies that size can be raised to 100 while paging through results. It does not explain every filter, but the schema already does that.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Find Dooray task posts' in specified project ID scopes. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by explicitly saying when not to call dooray_post_logs and when to call dooray_post_file_download, so an agent can select it confidently.

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 explicit routing guidance: use dooray_project for legacy URLs, avoid dooray_post_logs unless comments/activity are requested, and call dooray_post_file_download for fileIdList entries even when dooray_post_files is empty or errors. This is concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance beyond generic advice.

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