Read Post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly identifies this as a read operation and lists the exact JSON fields returned. However, it omits any mention of error conditions, permissions, or potential side effects, which would be expected for full transparency.

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, focused sentence. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Although the tool is simple, the description provides enough context for a basic read operation: it states the resource type, the key input, and the format of returned data. With no output schema, listing the returned fields is helpful. It falls short only in not mentioning any edge cases or error scenarios, but given the tool's simplicity, this is acceptable.

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 should compensate by explaining the post_id parameter. However, it merely says 'a specific post' without explicitly stating that post_id identifies the post. The parameter name in the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description adds no semantic value beyond what is already obvious.

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 ('Read a specific post') and identifies the resource (a post). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like discourse_read_topic by focusing on a single post. The mention of returned fields adds specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or explicitly contrast with sibling tools. The purpose implies you need a post_id, but no contextual usage hints are given.

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