get_post_likes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not state return format, pagination, cursor usage, or any permissions/rate limits, leaving significant behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat under-specified, lacking important contextual details about the parameters, so it does not reach the highest tier of helpful conciseness.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns and how parameters like count and cursor affect results. It does neither, leaving critical context missing for a tool with pagination support.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only clarifies that the operation is keyed by post ID; it adds no meaning for count or cursor beyond the schema's example values, which are minimal.

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 unambiguously identifies the action (get), resource (post likes), and key (post ID). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_post_retweets or get_post_comments, which handle different post engagement types.

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?

No guidance is provided for when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies use with a post ID, it does not mention contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools like get_user_likes or get_post_retweets.

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