get_post

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 transparently explains the default output (final voice-rewritten content), the includeOriginal option for pre-rewrite drafts, the variations array behavior, and the presence of contentReviewUrl and editInVisualEditor. It stops short of explicitly stating that the operation is read-only and does not discuss failure modes, but 'View' and 'get_post' strongly imply a non-mutating read.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds a distinct detail. Some repetition of schema defaults (e.g., 'default full', 'default false') exists, but the description remains tight and scannable.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential output aspects: content, status, verbosity control, variations, original content toggle, and review/edit URLs. It does not detail the full structure of 'short'/'medium'/'full' outputs, but the schema's detail enum covers that, making the description sufficient for selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: it explains the default 'full' verbosity, the variations array semantics for multi-variation posts, and the includeOriginal flag's effect on output. This exceeds simple schema repetition.

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 'View the full content and status of a single post,' using a specific verb ('view'), resource ('post'), and scope ('single') that clearly distinguishes it from list-oriented tools like list_posts. It also specifies distinct features (variations array, includeOriginal, contentReviewUrl, editInVisualEditor) that further clarify its 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 'single post' wording makes the primary use case clear, and the detail parameter guidance ('Lists default to short — to zoom into one item, call its get/view tool') explicitly tells agents when to use this tool over list tools. However, it does not directly mention alternatives for editing/deleting (e.g., approve_post, delete_post), though those are contextually obvious.

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