Get Published Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the specific behavioral context that it returns only Page-published posts and excludes visitor posts, which is not in the annotations. This is useful beyond the basic read-only implication.

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 main description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the key purpose and exclusion. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but is brief and doesn't bloat the description. Overall, it is efficient with 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?

The description covers the core purpose and main exclusion, but it omits details about pagination (after parameter), response format, and return structure. While the tool is a simple read and annotations handle safety, the two undocumented parameters leave gaps that could affect correct invocation. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 low (25%), and the description only mentions page_id and limit, repeating basic info already in the schema (type, default, range). It does not explain 'after' (pagination cursor) or 'response_format', leaving two parameters undocumented. The description does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb ('Gets') and resource ('posts published by the Page itself'), and explicitly differentiates from the feed edge by excluding visitor posts. This clearly identifies the tool's scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_get_posts and meta_get_visitor_posts.

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 provides a clear 'when-not' condition (excludes visitor posts) and references an alternative ('unlike the feed edge'), giving the agent a decision point. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or cover other usage scenarios, but the key distinction is enough to guide correct selection.

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