read_post

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful edge-case behavior: missing plugins return [], hidden poll vote counts return null, and plugin metadata has fixed size caps.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then offset semantics, then edge cases, with no filler. Mentioning next_offset, which is not in the input schema, introduces minor ambiguity that keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is largely unnecessary, and annotations cover safety. The description adequately covers raw content, offset semantics, and common edge cases, though max_chars remains undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains offset/next_offset as character positions and clarifies post_id must be a post ID rather than a topic/post number, but max_chars is left unexplained and next_offset is not an input parameter.

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?

States a specific verb 'Read' and resources 'raw Markdown, retorts and polls' for a post ID. The parenthetical 'not a topic/post number' distinguishes it from sibling read_topic without needing to open either schema.

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?

Provides an input-type constraint (post ID, not topic/post number) that implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never names alternative tools or states explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions.

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