list_publications

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description only mentions listing local cache with post counts, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires prerequisites, or has side effects. It also does not clarify what 'local cache' means operationally.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes relevant detail ('with post counts'). No redundancy or unnecessary text.

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?

Though the tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema, the description lacks critical contextual details such as whether it is a read-only operation, how 'local cache' is populated, and when to choose this over sibling tools. Given the importance of an agent knowing side effects and usage, the description is minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema is inherently fully covered. The description correctly omits parameter details, warranting the baseline score of 4 for no-parameter tools.

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 tool lists all publications in local cache and includes post counts, specifying the exact resource and scope. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_saved_posts, which focuses on saved posts rather than publications.

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 guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool instead of alternatives like search_saved_posts or sync_saved_posts. There are no explicit context cues, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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