list_saved_posts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the nuanced behavior of read_state, including the 'finished' threshold concept, and the source of audience values (cached, from list_audiences). It provides insight into how sorting works (allowed values for sort_by). However, it does not describe the output format, pagination behavior (beyond having limit/offset), or error cases.

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 dense but well-organized: the first sentence gives the overview, and the following lines explain each filter clearly. Front-loads the core purpose and then details the filter semantics. The structure is efficient with no fluff.

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?

Has an output schema, so return type explanation is not needed. The description covers the main behavioral aspects: sorting options, audience filter, read_state filter with its threshold logic, and implicitly pagination. Manual page size and limit are inferable. The main missing piece is a note on how the response is shaped or how pagination actually works (e.g., whether offset is counts of posts), but that is likely covered by the output schema. Given the complexity, it is close to complete.

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 fully compensate. It explains the semantics of sort_by (enumerating options), audience (referencing list_audiences for valid values), and read_state (explaining each value and the threshold concept). It also implies semantics for pagination (limit/offset). The description adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema, which only shows parameter names and types.

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'), the resource ('cached saved posts'), and the key features (pagination, optional filters). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_saved_posts by focusing on cached data listing with structured filters rather than search. The specific behaviors around read_state and sorting are unique to this tool.

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 usage by listing the available filters (audience, read_state, publication). It references list_audiences for cached values and explains the semantics of read_state clearly (including the threshold concept). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like search_saved_posts or get_saved_post, nor does it provide explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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