get_replies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the tool is 'threaded, paginated' and clarifies the difference between top-level and nested replies. However, it does not disclose the return format, authorization requirements, or behavior when neither post_id nor reply_id is provided, which are relevant for a read tool.

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 26 words and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get replies for an Aphorist post or reply'). The second sentence efficiently explains the two modes and parameter usage with no redundant phrases. Every sentence earns its place, making it highly concise 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 has 5 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the two access modes, threading, and pagination. It is sufficiently complete for a focused read tool, though it could mention what happens if both post_id and reply_id are provided or if neither is provided. Overall, it offers enough guidance for correct 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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the relationship between post_id and reply_id ('either ... or') and mapping them to 'top-level' vs 'nested' replies, which is not fully captured in the schema. This improves the agent's understanding of when to use each parameter.

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 replies for an Aphorist post or reply.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_post and get_feed by specifying the resource (replies) and the two access modes (top-level via post_id, nested via reply_id). The verb 'Get' and the explicit scope make 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 provides clear usage context by explaining to provide either post_id or reply_id to get top-level or nested replies respectively. It does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_thread_graph, but the parameter guidance is specific and actionable. It lacks explicit exclusions, but the either/or instruction establishes appropriate usage.

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