get_user_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'browse public posts', which weakly implies read-only and public scope, but it does not describe pagination, output shape, error handling, or any behavioral constraints. The schema covers sort and limit defaults, but not the broader behavioral context.

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 short sentence with no filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficiently phrased, though it is sparse enough that some useful behavioral context could be added without harming structure.

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?

An output schema exists and parameter schemas are fully descriptive, so the essential invocation details are present. The description is missing usage guidance and any behavioral nuance, but for a simple low-complexity list tool it remains minimally adequate rather than seriously incomplete.

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 100%; all three parameters have helpful descriptions, including the u/ prefix handling, sort options, and the 100-post cap. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 one-sentence description states a clear verb ('browse') and a specific resource ('public posts of a Reddit user'), which makes the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_post_comments and get_post_details by targeting a user's post listing, but it does not explicitly contrast with search tools such as search_reddit, 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?

The description implies the tool is used when you want a known user's public posts, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, so an agent has to infer selection criteria from sibling names alone.

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