skool_posts_get

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns full content and comments, and the name 'get' implies a read operation. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which are important for a tool with no structured annotations.

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 sentence that fronts the action ('Get a single post...') and includes the necessary input instruction ('Provide the post slug...'). There is no redundant information or unnecessary length; every word 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?

For a simple read tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently communicates the tool's purpose, return value (full content and comments), and required input. It is adequately complete for the tool's complexity, though it omits edge-case behaviors like error responses.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (postSlug and community). The description only repeats the post slug source ('name field from posts list'), which is already in the schema. Therefore, the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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's function: 'Get a single post with its full content and comments.' The verb 'Get' is specific, the resource is obvious, and the scope (single post vs. list) distinguishes it from sibling tools like skool_posts_list. It also explains the required input (post slug), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 a single post's full content and comments, which is distinct from list or create tools, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself lacks direct 'use this instead of...' guidance.

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