get_post_content

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 'Get detailed content' but doesn't clarify what 'detailed content' includes (e.g., post body, metadata, comments), whether it's a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get detailed content of a specific post'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 complexity (a post retrieval tool with parameters for comments), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed content' entails, how comments are included, or the return format, leaving gaps that could hinder correct tool invocation by an AI agent.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (post_id, comment_limit, comment_depth) with descriptions, defaults, and constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed content of a specific post', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_post_comments' or 'get_frontpage_posts', which might also retrieve post-related data, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_post_comments' or 'get_frontpage_posts'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific contexts, leaving the agent with no usage instructions beyond the basic purpose.

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