get_post

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It says 'detailed information' but does not disclose error behavior, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens for nonexistent posts. The basic read operation is implied but not enriched.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the verb, resource, and scope, earning its place without redundancy.

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 one-parameter GET tool, the description is minimally adequate but lacks return format details or usage conditions. With no output schema, more specificity about 'detailed information' would improve completeness, especially given sibling tools that may overlap.

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 coverage is 100% for the only parameter postId, with description 'ID of the post to retrieve'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies as established by high schema coverage.

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?

Description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'a specific Canny post', clearly indicating single-post retrieval. It mildly distinguishes from siblings like get_posts and search_posts by emphasizing 'specific', though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus get_posts, search_posts, or get_comments. The description implies a need for a postId but does not state conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.

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