get_post

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but it doesn't mention whether the returned post is a draft or published, what fields are included, whether authentication is required, or how errors (e.g., missing slug) are handled. These are meaningful gaps for a tool that interacts with posts that may have draft/published states as suggested by sibling tools.

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 words. Every word adds value: 'Get' (action), 'single' (cardinality), 'DayBy post' (resource), 'by its slug' (access path). It is excellently concise.

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 simple one-parameter getter, this description is minimally adequate: it states the operation and the lookup key. However, without an output schema, it does not describe what the tool returns (full post body, metadata only, etc.) or any filtering behavior (e.g., drafts vs. published). Given the tool's simplicity, the description is close to sufficient but still leaves some gaps.

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 schema covers the only parameter, 'slug', with a description 'The post slug'. The tool description adds 'by its slug', which confirms that slug is the identifier, but it doesn't provide additional semantic details such as slug format or case sensitivity. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single DayBy post'), and the lookup key ('by its slug'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_posts (plural) and update_post by emphasizing 'single'. This is a precise and unambiguous statement of 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 phrase 'a single... by its slug' implies this tool is for fetching one specific post rather than listing all posts, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like list_posts or when to prefer one over the other. The usage context is implied but not stated as a guideline.

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