get_post

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the key behavioral trait: it returns the full post with all constituent parts. It does not mention read-only status, but 'Get' implies non-mutation. It lacks details on error handling or permissions, but for a simple read operation, the disclosure of return content is sufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and the second sentence adds a practical usage hint. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 description adequately covers what is returned and how to specify the post. It does not mention potential errors or access restrictions, but for a simple get operation with no output schema, this level is sufficient. The sibling tools are distinct enough that the tool's role is clear.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the example for post_number ('123' for @123) already in the schema and adds no additional semantic context for network_id beyond the schema.

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 retrieves a full Piazza post, listing specific content like question body, answers, follow-ups, and endorsements. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_feed or search_posts by focusing on a single post by number.

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 clear context on how to use the post number (e.g., '@123') but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like search_posts or get_feed. It is implied that this is for retrieving a specific post by ID, but no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references are given.

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