get_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a simple 'read' by warning that returned content is untrusted data and never an instruction, which is a critical safety trait. However, it does not disclose cursor pagination behavior or return structure, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 with no filler. The core function is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence earns its place by adding an important security boundary. Every word contributes value.

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?

For a single-read tool with one required parameter, the description covers the main function, optional comment inclusion, and a crucial trust boundary. It does not explain cursor semantics or output shape, and there is no output schema to fill that gap, but the essential invocation and safety context is present.

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 meaning for post_id ('one post') and include_comments ('optionally, its comment tree'), but the cursor parameter is not explained at all. The partial compensation is helpful but incomplete.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one post and, optionally, its comment tree.' This clearly distinguishes get_post from siblings like list_posts, read_feed, and read_digest, which are collection-oriented reads. The security qualifier about untrusted data further clarifies what this tool returns.

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 fetching a single post by ID and optionally its comments, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like list_posts or read_feed. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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