Get Threads Posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it lists posts, supports pagination via 'after', and allows date filtering with 'since'/'until'. It does not describe the response format or error conditions, but with annotations covering core behavior, this is sufficient for a read-only list operation.

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 compact: a one-sentence purpose followed by a structured Args list. The main action is front-loaded. While the Args list duplicates some schema defaults (e.g., limit min/max), it also provides new clarifications like date format. The structure is clear and does not waste words, though it could be slightly more concise by omitting redundant defaults.

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?

This tool has six parameters and no output schema, so the description should cover key return and usage details. It explains the listing purpose and pagination cursor, but does not describe the response structure, how to use the 'after' cursor (e.g., from a next_page_token field), or the effect of response_format on output. Given the lack of an output schema, this is a notable gap; a more complete description would mention response format and pagination mechanics.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It does for most parameters: threads_user_id is annotated as coming from threads_get_profile, limit has range and default clarified, since/until have date format specified, and after is identified as a pagination cursor. The only omitted parameter is response_format, but that is already described in the schema. Thus the description adds value beyond the schema for previously undocumented parameters.

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 ('Lists') and a clear resource ('the authenticated user's Threads posts'), which distinguishes it from siblings like threads_get_post (single post), threads_get_replies, and threads_get_post_insights. It also clarifies scope as the user's own posts, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 usage for listing a user's posts but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. It gives no guidance on exclusions (e.g., don't use for replies or insights) or conditions that would route to a sibling tool. The context is clear from the name, but explicit routing is absent.

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