read_post

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. 'Read' implies a non-mutating operation, and the return content (content, comments, metadata) is stated. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior (e.g., post not found), or whether drafts are accessible, leaving important behavior unspecified.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and 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?

The tool is simple with only two well-documented params and no output schema, so the description need not be lengthy. It covers the return contents and specificity, but lacks usage alternatives and edge-case behavior, making it adequate but not thorough for an agent selecting among many siblings.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both username and url_slug. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'specific post', so it does not meaningfully augment what the schema already communicates.

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 clearly states the action (Read), the resource (a specific Velog post), and the scope (full content, comments, and metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_posts or search_posts, which are list-oriented.

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 word 'specific' implies this tool is for retrieving an individual post, but the description provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this instead of get_user_posts, get_trending_posts, or search_posts. No alternatives are named or exclusions given.

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