x_get_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reveals that the response includes the requested fields ('whichever fields you ask for'). It does not disclose error behavior (e.g., not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether expansions/tweet.fields must be provided. The field-selection nuance is helpful but insufficient.

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 compact sentence, front-loading the core purpose ('One post by id') before the field-selectivity qualifier. There is no fluff; however, brevity comes at the cost of missing detail, which is captured in other dimensions.

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?

The tool has no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, yet the description only covers 'one post by id' and field selection. It omits return format, error contexts, and any elaboration on how field selection is expressed, making it underpowered for an agent to invoke reliably.

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 for undocumented parameters. It clarifies that post_id is the identifier and that field-related parameters exist, but it doesn't explain the format or distinction between expansions and tweet.fields, nor that tweet.fields is a literal property name. This partial mapping is not enough for correct invocation.

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 phrase 'One post by id' clearly identifies the resource (a single post) and the selection criterion (id), distinguishing it from x_search_posts which would return multiple posts. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' and doesn't name the sibling it differs from, so it falls short of a full 5.

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?

No guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as x_search_posts or x_get_me. 'One post by id' only implies that the agent should use it when a post_id is known and a single post is needed, but there are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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