threads_get_post

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description does not mention authentication requirements, error behavior (e.g., post not found), or whether hidden/private posts are excluded. It essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args block is efficient, though including 'ctx: FastMCP request context' is unnecessary since ctx is not in the schema and adds minor noise. Overall, it is compact 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 simple single-post retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It lacks guidance on when to use it relative to siblings and does not disclose behavioral details like permissions or error cases. The output schema covers return values, but the missing usage context keeps this from being fully complete.

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 input schema has zero description coverage for post_id, and the description compensates minimally by stating 'post_id: The ID of the post to retrieve.' This adds a human-readable explanation beyond the raw schema, but it is terse and does not provide format, examples, or additional constraints.

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 states 'Get a Threads post by ID,' which specifies a clear verb ('Get'), a resource ('Threads post'), and a scope (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like threads_get_user_posts, which retrieves multiple posts for a user, and threads_get_replies, which gets replies.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions such as 'use when you have a post ID' or exclude cases like getting a user's posts, so there is no direct comparison with sibling tools.

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