List posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only 'Reads account data,' which is vague and partially redundant with the readOnly annotation, offering no additional behavioral context like pagination defaults, rate limits, or what 'account data' entails.

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 extremely concise (two short sentences) with no wasted words. However, this brevity comes at the cost of usefulness, and the second sentence is vague rather than front-loading critical information.

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?

Given 8 parameters, 38% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations beyond standard hints, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain pagination behavior, filtering options, or return structure, leaving the agent without necessary context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 38%, so the description must compensate for several undocumented parameters (after, before, per_page, include_content, include_total_count). The description adds no parameter detail at all, leaving over half the parameters without explanation in either schema or description.

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 verb+resource ('List posts') but this is essentially a restatement of the title and name. It does not distinguish from the sibling 'get_post' or explain what a 'post' is, leaving the agent to infer scope without additional specificity.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. The description does not mention alternatives like get_post for a single post, nor does it indicate context such as needing a specific account or filtering. Usage is left entirely to inference.

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