get_post

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: there is exactly one route (GET /api/v3/posts/{id}) and no discovery mechanism, which shapes how an agent must plan around the tool. It stops short of describing response shape or error behavior for a missing id.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, then justification for why the id must be supplied externally. The API-route detail is slightly verbose but earns its place by explaining the absence of a list tool. No filler sentences.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description supplies the missing piece an agent would otherwise flounder on: id provenance and the absence of any discovery path. It doesn't mention permissions or what a post object contains, but those are lower priority given the existing structured data.

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 carry the burden, and it does: it explains that post_id cannot be obtained from any listing endpoint and must be sourced from a work package journal, forum reference, or a copied UI link. That is the key semantic an agent needs. It does not clarify type/format detail (integer id) beyond the schema, hence not a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single forum post by id') and explicitly disambiguates from what agents would expect by noting there is no collection/list endpoint for posts or forums. An agent immediately knows this is a single-object fetch, not a listing tool.

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?

Directly addresses the natural alternative ('list_posts or list_forums') and states it cannot exist, then tells the agent where ids come from: work package activity/journal references or a web UI link. Strong, but it doesn't spell out any usage exclusions or permission prerequisites for calling it.

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