Get Post Details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving 'comprehensive details' and 'comments', which hints at read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state if this is a safe read operation, what permissions are needed, or how it handles errors (e.g., invalid IDs). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('Get comprehensive details') and resource ('HackerNews post'). It wastes no words and clearly communicates the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or parameter details, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond a basic understanding of its purpose.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'id' represents (e.g., a HackerNews post ID) or what 'includeComments' does (e.g., toggles comment retrieval). With 2 parameters and low coverage, the description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get comprehensive details') and resources ('about a HackerNews post'), including what information is retrieved ('metadata and comments'). It distinguishes from siblings like search_posts by focusing on retrieving details for a specific post rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the sibling differentiation in the description text itself.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_posts or search_comments. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a post ID) or exclusions (e.g., not for searching). The implied usage is for retrieving details of a known post, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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