get_post

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that image attachments are returned inline and PDF attachments have their text extracted inline, which is meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple fetch. It does not mention error cases or pagination, but for a single-post retrieval tool this is adequate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by useful attachment behavior notes and a brief Args section. The Args block partly duplicates the schema, but it adds semantic value that the schema lacks, so no sentence is wasted.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the essential call information: what the tool returns, how attachments are handled, and where the required parameter comes from. It is not exhaustive about response structure or errors, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 only describes feed_id as an integer with title 'Feed Id', and description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by explaining that feed_id is a 'Post/feed ID' and, crucially, tells the agent where to find it in get_feeds results, which the schema does not convey.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a specific post including body text, comments, and attachments.' This distinguishes it from list-style tools like get_feeds and get_group_feed, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling.

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 gives a useful prerequisite by saying feed_id is 'shown as feed_id in get_feeds results', but it does not explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_group_feed or get_conversation. No exclusions or decision rules are provided.

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