content_browse_posts

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is read-only and public, and describes the return format (array with pagination metadata). It also includes filter examples. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication, or the default value for limit in the description.

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 well-structured with sections (TIP, USE CASE, NOTE, FILTER EXAMPLES, RETURNS). Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and it is appropriately concise.

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 the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, filtering, and return format. However, it does not specify the default limit value or mention other potential behavioral aspects like rate limits, so it's not fully exhaustive.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value beyond schema with the TIP about using the 'fields' param to reduce response size, and concrete filter examples (tag:getting-started, featured:true, author:john) that are not in the schema.

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 verb 'browse' and resource 'published posts' from Ghost Content API, distinguishing it from sibling tools like content_browse_authors and content_browse_tags. It also contrasts with admin_browse_posts for non-public content.

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 provides explicit use cases (frontend display, search by tag/author, RSS feeds) and explicitly states when not to use it (for drafts/scheduled posts, use admin_browse_posts). This gives clear guidance vs. alternatives.

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