get_post_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the input logic ('If both are set, post id is used'), which adds some context, but fails to describe key behaviors such as what 'post details' includes, error handling, or any rate limits or permissions needed. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a clarifying rule. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or waste, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains input logic but doesn't cover what 'post details' returns, potential errors, or other behavioral aspects. For a tool in this context, more information is needed to fully guide an AI agent, especially with many sibling tools available.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters are documented in the schema. The description compensates by explaining the input options ('by url or post id') and their precedence ('post id is used'), adding meaningful semantics beyond the empty schema. This is appropriate for a tool with no parameters.

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's purpose: 'Get post details by url or post id.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('post details'), and mentions the input options. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'post_reactions' or 'search_post', which slightly limits its clarity in context.

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 provides implied usage guidance by stating 'If both are set, post id is used,' which helps prioritize inputs. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use advice compared to alternatives (e.g., when to use this vs. 'search_post' or 'post_reactions'), and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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