ghost_list_newsletters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('list all email newsletters') but does not disclose any quirks like pagination, ordering, or whether archived newsletters are included. For a read-only list operation this is minimally sufficient, but it adds no additional behavioral context.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No filler or redundant information. Efficient and to the point.

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 optional parameter and no output schema, nothing is missing. The description and schema together fully equip an agent to call it correctly. No additional context is required.

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 only parameter 'include' is fully described in the schema ('Include member & post counts') with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. No undocumented parameters exist.

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?

States the specific verb 'List' and resource 'email newsletters' on the 'Ghost CMS publication'. The word 'all' clearly distinguishes it from ghost_get_newsletter (singular) and ghost_create_newsletter. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 retrieving all newsletters, which naturally contrasts with get_newsletter for a single one. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. It provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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