Get a post

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds useful context by noting the returned data includes like/repost counts and the cid needed for actions, but it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior, error handling, or authentication requirements. It's not misleading, but it lacks comprehensive disclosure.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and object, then provides key details. No wasted words, and it earns its place by adding semantic value.

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 is a simple read operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential input semantics and describes the return value's key fields. It lacks edge-case behavior but is largely complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema only defines 'uris' as an array of strings with min/max items. The description adds essential meaning by specifying the strings are at:// URIs, which is critical for correct invocation. This goes beyond the schema's structural definition.

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 tool fetches posts by at:// URI, specifying it can handle one or more posts and includes like/repost counts and cid. This is a specific verb+resource+distinctive detail that differentiates it from siblings like get_author_feed or search_posts.

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 context by specifying input as at:// URIs, which tells an agent when to use this tool (when you have post URIs). It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives but the unique input format and purpose provide clear context without needing exclusions.

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