skool_get_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the default behavior of including comments ('by default') and clarifies that post_name is a slug, not an id. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, or side effects (though as a read, side effects are minimal). This is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 at two sentences, with the action and scope front-loaded. The parameter clarification is seamlessly integrated into the second sentence without redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place, and the structure aids quick comprehension.

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?

Given the simplicity (2 params, no output schema) and no annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the key parameter nuance, and default behavior. It lacks details on error responses or exact return structure, but for a read tool with a clear resource, it is mostly complete. The mention of 'full post' and 'comments' gives a reasonable picture of the return content.

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. It adds critical meaning to post_name by clarifying it is a slug from skool_list_posts and not an id, which is essential for correct invocation. It also indirectly explains with_comments via the 'by default' phrasing. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though not comprehensive for all params.

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') and the resource ('one full post' and 'its comments'). It distinguishes from siblings like skool_list_posts (listing) and skool_create_post (creation) by specifying a single post retrieval. The parameter clarification further anchors the purpose.

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 indicates when to use this tool by stating it reads one full post, implying it is for single-post retrieval rather than listing. It also references skool_list_posts as the source of post_name, which signals a workflow of listing first then getting details. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives directly.

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