get_post

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

The description includes 'GET /{post-id}', which usefully signals that this is a read-only operation and matches a standard HTTP endpoint. With no annotations, the description still carries the disclosure burden, but it does not mention error behavior, the fact that returned fields are customizable, or that the default field list may limit what 'full details' means.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the HTTP endpoint in parentheses. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 the return structure is documented elsewhere. Still, the description leaves uncertainty about the fields parameter and does not clarify how this tool relates to the many post-related sibling tools, so the agent may not be fully prepared to invoke it optimally.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It indirectly covers post_id via 'by its ID', but it does not mention the fields parameter, which is optional, has a default, and directly affects what data is returned. This is a meaningful gap given the absent schema descriptions.

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 action ('Get full details') and resource ('a single post by its ID'), which distinguishes it from list-oriented tools like get_page_posts and from sub-resource tools like get_post_comments. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 'single post by its ID' implies when to use this tool: when you already have a post ID and need that post's details. It does not state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_post_comments or get_post_likes, so the usage context is only implicit.

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