moltbook_get_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that comments are included in the response, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, error behavior for invalid or deleted post IDs, or whether the read has side effects.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the action and resource with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, and mentioning that comments are bundled in is valuable given there is no output schema. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not characterize the returned post fields or any pagination/limit behavior on comments.

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 a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents postId as 'The ID of the post'. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (Get) and resource (details of a specific post) plus scope (including its comments). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like moltbook_read_feed or moltbook_search, which an agent could plausibly confuse for retrieving 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?

No indication of when to use this tool versus moltbook_read_feed, moltbook_search, or moltbook_user_status. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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