discord_get_forum_post

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and the description reinforces it with 'Read-only' — no contradiction. It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the return shape (specific detail fields plus messages), the ordering behavior (oldest-to-newest), and that the result is a JSON object. It does not address edge behaviors like empty threads, but the output schema covers the return contract.

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?

Four short sentences, all load-bearing: purpose with an itemized payload, ordering behavior, read-only safety, required input, and return type. Front-loaded with verb and resource; zero 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?

For a 2-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers what it returns, what input is required, and its safety profile. An agent can invoke it correctly with only thread_id, and the limit constraints live in the schema. Nothing material needed for correct invocation is missing.

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 coverage is 100% — both thread_id and limit already have descriptions covering the snowflake pattern, constraints, and default, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal reinforcement by telling the agent to pass thread_id and linking 'recent messages' to the limit parameter; it does not carry the semantic burden.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('a forum post's details'), and itemizes the payload (title, archived/locked state, applied tags, message count, recent messages oldest-to-newest). This distinguishes it from sibling getters like discord_read_messages (general message reads) and discord_list_forum_threads (listing threads rather than fetching one post's details).

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 makes the use case clear — pull details plus recent messages for a single forum post — and gives a concrete invocation instruction ('Pass the post's thread_id') along with the 'Read-only' framing so an agent knows this is a safe fetch. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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