get_post

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description adds the return-shape detail: fields for the post view, failure reason on failed publishes, and per-field remediation for the missing view. It does not address how a nonexistent post ID is handled.

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 core statement is front-loaded in the first four words, and the remaining field lists are informative rather than filler. The two sentences are long but each clause carries concrete content about the returned data.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing return values across both views, which it does thoroughly. Minor gaps remain: no mention of error behavior for invalid IDs and no note on whether the response nests objects.

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%, but the schema only says "post (default) or missing" while the description explains in detail what each view returns and what the missing view is for. That adds real semantic meaning beyond the enum definition.

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?

"One post by ID" gives a specific verb (retrieve) and resource (post), and the two view modes are enumerated precisely. It does not explicitly name siblings like list_posts or update_post, so differentiation is implied by "one" rather than stated.

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 implies usage for view=missing ("how to fix it before the post can publish") which tells an agent when troubleshooting is relevant. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose get_post over list_posts or update_post, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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