harvest_get_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that it gets post details, but does not mention authentication requirements, return format, rate limits, potential errors (e.g., invalid/private post), or whether it is read-only. The description is too thin to provide meaningful behavioral transparency beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It directly states the action, resource, and input method. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise 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?

For a one-parameter get-by-URL tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It does not clarify what 'details' includes (e.g., content, author, metrics) and does not mention error cases or that this complements siblings like harvest_get_post_comments. The lack of an output schema and annotations means the description should provide more context, but given the tool's simplicity, it meets a minimum viability threshold.

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 schema already covers the 'url' parameter with a clear description ('URL of the LinkedIn post (required)'). The description's mention of 'by URL' adds no new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not enhance parameter understanding further.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('LinkedIn post details') and the method of identification ('by URL'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like harvest_search_posts (search-based) and harvest_get_post_comments (comments only) by focusing on the post itself via a URL. This is a clear, non-tautological statement of 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 phrase 'by URL' implies the tool is meant to be used when you have a specific post URL. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives (e.g., harvest_search_posts for discovery) or any exclusions. Usage is implied but not elaborated.

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