List posts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the schema ('returns the newest page by default'), but says nothing about ordering field, total counts, or how to traverse pages.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero filler, and the core scope-plus-filters statement is front-loaded before the pagination note.

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?

Wait — for a 7-parameter read tool with no output schema and 43% parameter coverage, the description should clarify return shape or cursor usage. It states a default ordering, but the absence of detail on 'after' chaining and what a returned post contains leaves gaps, so this is scored 3.

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 only 43%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by naming channel, status, and due-date filters (mapping to channelIds, status, dueAfter/dueBefore) and implying organizationId. It leaves 'after' and 'limit' unexplained beyond the vague 'newest page by default', so the gap is not fully closed.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List posts'), scopes it to an organization, and names the filter dimensions (channel, status, due date). It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling buffer_get_post by the list scope, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 phrase 'with optional channel, status, and due-date filters' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over buffer_get_post, buffer_list_ideas, or buffer_get_analytics, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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