Read your recent posts

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the response is ordered newest-first, contains ids and permalinks, and id/permalinks have an asymmetric relationship across the API. It does not cover pagination or rate limits, but the schema documents pagination parameters.

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 sentences, front-loaded with resource, scope, and ordering, followed by a substantive note about why the ids matter. Every sentence earns its place and there is no 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 read-only list tool with full schema parameter coverage, the description covers the essentials: whose posts, ordering, key returned fields, and the critical dependency other tools have on the IDs. It does not describe every returned field, but no output schema is present and the description gives enough orientation for correct invocation.

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 every parameter already has a description in structured form. The prose adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific action and resource: reading your own Threads posts, not general or public posts. It also specifies the ordering ('newest first') and content ('ids and permalinks'), making it clearly distinct from siblings like get_post, get_top_posts, or search_keyword.

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 use: results are the source of numeric IDs that other Threads tools require, and permalinks cannot be converted back to IDs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the ID-origin framing makes the primary use case obvious.

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