ghost_list_posts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates a read-oriented operation ('List and search') with filtering, pagination, and sorting, but does not disclose return format, default pagination behavior, rate limits, or any side effects. It is not misleading, but notably incomplete for a tool that performs data retrieval.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core function and capability set. No extraneous content, though it could be structured slightly better to highlight the scope (posts vs newsletters) without ambiguity. It earns points for brevity and clarity.

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?

The tool has five optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the return shape (e.g., list of post objects, whether metadata like total count is included), nor any limitations. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 schema provides 100% parameter coverage with descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema already documents (e.g., filter, page/limit, order). The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description merely summarizes these capabilities generically.

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 uses a clear verb ('List and search') and a specific resource ('blog posts & newsletters from Ghost CMS'), plus mentions capabilities (filtering, pagination, sorting). It distinguishes itself from ghost_get_post (single post) and ghost_list_pages (pages), but does not explicitly differentiate from ghost_list_newsletters, creating slight ambiguity about overlap.

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 given on when to use this tool versus siblings. It does not mention when not to use it, such as when a single post is needed (use ghost_get_post) or when specifically listing newsletters (use ghost_list_newsletters). The description only states the general function, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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