list_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the 'official' scope and the board categories, which is useful, and 'List' implies a read operation. However, it does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the schema defaults, or any other behavioral traits. This is minimally adequate.

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 very short and front-loads the core action before the board mapping. Every sentence earns its place, and the format is easy to scan. It is concise rather than under-specified, though it could have included one more sentence of usage context.

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 tool's low complexity, the presence of an output schema, and the explicit board mapping, the description is mostly sufficient for an agent to issue a correct call. It lacks usage guidance versus siblings and omits any behavioral details such as authentication or pagination semantics, but nothing critical is entirely missing for a simple list operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add value for the required 'board' parameter by enumerating meaningful values (11=논평·브리핑, 230=모두발언). The 'limit' and 'offset' parameters are not described, but they are standard pagination fields with defaults in the schema, so an agent can infer their semantics. Partial compensation for a low-coverage 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 ('List') and resource ('official 더불어민주당 posts'), which makes the basic purpose unambiguous. It also maps board IDs to post categories, adding specificity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tools search_posts and get_post, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus search_posts or get_post. The description provides board semantics but never states exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which the agent should prefer one sibling over another.

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