discord_get_forum_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 'retrieves details' which implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific details are included beyond 'messages'. This leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly, though it could be slightly more structured with additional context.

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 complexity of a retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, and behavioral traits, making it insufficient for an AI agent to fully understand how to use the tool effectively in context.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description doesn't mention the 'threadId' parameter at all. Since there are no parameters described in the schema, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information but also doesn't contradict the schema.

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 verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'forum post details including its messages', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discord_read_messages' or 'discord_get_forum_channels', which limits its score to 4 rather than 5.

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 such as 'discord_read_messages' or 'discord_get_forum_channels', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. This lack of explicit or implied usage instructions results in a low score.

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