get_community_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 discloses the return content ('full body and comments'), clarifies subdomain as the Help Center hostname, and explains force_refresh as cache-bypassing. It does not go into error cases or authorization, but the read-only nature is clearly conveyed by 'Fetch'.

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 appropriately sized: one clear purpose sentence followed by three compact parameter explanations. The main action is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler content. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simple three-parameter tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, parameter semantics, and cache behavior. It does not explain likely error responses or when to pick this over a sibling, but for a basic read operation the core calling requirements are met.

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 fully. It provides meaningful semantics for subdomain ('Help Center hostname') and force_refresh ('Bypass cache and fetch fresh data'), while post_id ('Post ID to fetch') is minimally informative but still mapps to the schema property. This is strong compensation for the schema gap.

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 uses a specific verb- resource pair, 'Fetch a community post with its full body and comments,' which clearly identifies both the action and the target object. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_community_posts by framing it as a single-post fetch rather than a listing operation.

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 the intended usage scenario: retrieving one community post by ID along with its comments. However, it does not explicitely state when to choose this over list_community_posts or any other sibling, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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