list_social_accounts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a read operation ('List'), but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, safe, or free of side effects. While listing is inherently safe, explicit confirmation of safety would improve transparency.

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 concise with two sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and then adds relevant usage context. No unnecessary words.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, return value, and usage context. Missing details like sorting or pagination could be added, but not critical given tool simplicity.

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% and the schema describes workspace_id as 'Postoria workspace ID.' The tool description adds minimal value beyond stating 'in a Postoria workspace,' not providing additional details like format, source, or constraints. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'List', the resource 'social accounts', and the scope 'in a Postoria workspace'. It also specifies the return value (account IDs) and their usage for publishing, scheduling, or queueing posts, distinguishing from sibling tools like list_workspaces and list_queues.

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 clear context on when the returned IDs are used (publishing, scheduling, queueing posts), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The guidance is implicit and sufficient for the tool's purpose.

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