get_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that comments are returned as a flat list with no reply tree, and that scores/vote counts are not included. It also states the tool reads content, which implies a non-destructive operation. These limitations are exactly the kind of behavioral context agents need.

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 efficient and well-organized: a clear purpose statement, a usage note, a behavioral caveat, and a compact argument list. It is front-loaded with the primary function and avoids redundant phrasing. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: what the tool returns, its limitations, usage context, and parameter formats. An agent can confidently call it after reading this description. Minor omissions like error handling are not essential for 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain both parameters. It does: url is defined with concrete examples of valid Reddit URLs, and comment_limit is described as 'Max comments to return.' This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema names and types.

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 tool reads a Reddit thread (original post plus comments) and explicitly contrasts it with search/browse tools that only return titles. The verb 'read' and resource 'Reddit thread' are specific, and the phrase 'the details, caveats, corrections, and disagreements that a title alone never carries' further clarifies its unique role.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Use this after a search or a browse turns up a promising thread.' It also implies when not to use it by noting that it returns full content rather than lists, differentiating it from browse_subreddit and search_reddit. No alternative tool is named, but the context is unambiguous.

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