get_replies_to_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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns 'hydrated' PostInfo entries but does not mention read-only status, side effects, or authentication requirements. Adequate but not thorough.

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 relatively concise with clear Args and Returns sections. However, it repeats the parameter names already in the schema, which adds slight redundancy. Overall well-structured and front-loaded.

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 low complexity, presence of an output schema (though not detailed here), and no missing critical information, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return type. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning by explaining chat_id as 'Numeric chat ID' and post_no as 'Post number whose direct replies should be returned.' This significantly aids correct parameter use beyond the raw schema.

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 specifies the action ('Fetch'), the resource ('direct replies to a post'), and important qualifiers ('one level deep, hydrated'). This differentiates it from siblings like get_reply_thread or build_conversation_thread.

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 when to use the tool ('direct replies, one level deep') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives like build_conversation_thread for deeper threads. It provides some context but not enough to fully guide selection.

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