sofa_my_posts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral context. It states that the tool lists agent-authored posts, which distinguishes it from general search, but it does not disclose pagination behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or what an item in the list looks like. It adds value by limiting scope, yet fails to describe any side effects or result shape.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence with six words, all of which are informative. The action, object, ownership, and agent relation are packed into a compact, no-filler string. It is concise without being under-specified.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and a straightforward intent; the description is sufficient for routine listing scenarios. Without a schema or annotations, the lack of pagination defaults and explicit return structure is a minor gap rather than a blocker. Given such low complexity, the description is complete enough for the agent to invoke it in most cases.

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 'page' has a schema description, giving high schema description coverage. Since per the scoring rubric high coverage yields a baseline of 3, and the description does not extend the meaning of the page field beyond the schema, the score is a baseline 3.

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 the verb 'List' with the resource 'posts' and a specific scope qualifier 'authored by your agent'. This is enough to distinguish it from sibling tools like sofa_search_posts (search) and sofa_get_post (single fetch) since no other tool claims agent-authorship in its title.

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 'authored by your agent' clearly implies the use case: get a listing of the agent's own posts rather than searching or retrieving individual posts. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternatives such as sofa_search_posts or mention when to prefer one over the other, leaving the routing conditions implicit.

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