threads_get_post

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description ('Get details') adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits or response characteristics.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, 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?

For a read-only tool with clear annotations and a simple parameter set, the description is mostly complete. However, it could mention that the 'fields' parameter allows customizing the returned data, which adds context not covered by annotations or schema alone.

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 100%, meaning both parameters (post_id and fields) are already described in the schema. The tool description does not add any extra meaning or context for the parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 'Get details of a specific Threads post' clearly states the action (get details) and the resource (a specific Threads post), distinguishing it from sibling tools like threads_get_posts (list multiple posts) and threads_get_post_insights (insights for a post).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it is for retrieving a single post by ID, while threads_get_posts is for listing multiple posts. There are no when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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