x_post_get

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by noting that long text can be recovered from result_id and by listing the supported views (thread, replies, quotes, reposters), which are behavioral details not present in annotations. No contradiction with 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 concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the core functionality, and the second adds a useful recovery detail. It is well-structured and every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has an output schema and 6 parameters, but the description covers only the primary use case. It omits explanations for parameters like sort, limit, cursor, and detail, and does not mention pagination behavior. While the output schema helps define return values, the description is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to understand all calling options.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for missing parameter documentation. It clarifies that 'post' accepts an ID or URL and hints at the 'view' parameter by listing thread/replies/quotes/reposters. However, it does not explain 'sort', 'limit', 'cursor', or 'detail' parameters, leaving them opaque. The description only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 states a specific verb 'Read' and a clear resource 'public post', and enumerates the available views (thread, replies, quotes, reposters). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like x_search and x_user_get by focusing on retrieving a post by ID/URL. No tautology; it clearly conveys the tool's purpose.

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 have a post ID or URL and need to fetch the post or related content, which gives some context. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or mention alternatives (e.g., 'use x_search to find posts first'). Thus usage is implied but not explicitly guided.

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