Read Post

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds value by specifying the return content (post content, author, creation date, link), which is useful context not covered by annotations, though it doesn't detail error handling or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and efficiently lists return values in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It specifies return values, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could improve by mentioning error cases or when to use versus siblings, but overall it's adequate for the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'post_id' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or edge cases. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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 specific action ('Read a specific post by its ID') and resource ('post'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'discourse_read_topic' (which reads topics) and 'discourse_list_user_posts' (which lists posts). It explicitly mentions the verb 'Read' and target 'post', avoiding tautology with the name/title.

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 implies usage when needing to read a specific post by ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discourse_read_topic' or 'discourse_list_user_posts'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially implied rather than clearly defined.

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