list_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well. It discloses rate-limit behavior with retry fields, internal link rewriting, and the pinned-header behavior across pages. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then adds pagination details, and ends with a separate rate-limit notice. Every sentence contributes distinct information without unnecessary filler.

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 simple paginated read tool, the description covers output content, pagination semantics, page size, and exceptional rate-limit response. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently describes what the caller receives and how to handle retries.

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 schema already documents both parameters. The description adds extra interpretative value: pages are 1-indexed, each page has 20 posts, and rate-limit retry behaviors are tied to calling again. This goes beyond basic type hints.

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 specific verb and resource: 'List posts on a page of a 4PDA topic (lofi version)', and it specifies the returned content: author, date, and HTML body. This makes it clearly distinct from the sibling tools list_forums and list_topics.

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 clear operational context: pages are 1-indexed, each page has 20 posts, and the pinned header is dropped on later pages. It doesn't explicitly say 'use list_topics instead' or 'don't use for forums', but the scope is concrete enough that an agent can decide when to invoke it.

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