Read Post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Read a specific post,' which implies a read-only operation but does not specify details like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what data is returned (e.g., content, author, timestamps). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence ('Read a specific post.'), which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'reading' entails (e.g., output format), potential errors, or usage context. For a tool with no structured support, more detail is needed to guide effective use.

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?

The input schema has one parameter (post_id) with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds no information about the parameter, such as what post_id represents or how to obtain it. However, with only one parameter and a straightforward tool, the baseline is 3 as the schema minimally defines the requirement.

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 states the basic action ('Read') and resource ('a specific post'), which is clear but minimal. It distinguishes from siblings like 'discourse_read_topic' by specifying 'post' rather than 'topic', but lacks detail on what reading entails (e.g., retrieving content, metadata). The purpose is vague beyond the basic verb-noun pairing.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid post_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'discourse_read_topic' or 'discourse_list_user_posts'. The description offers no contextual usage information.

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