get_post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, if there are rate limits, what happens on invalid IDs, or the return format. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Fetch a single post'), making it easy to scan. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information 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?

Given the complexity (a read operation with two required parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral traits like error handling, or what the tool returns. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to be fully actionable.

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%, meaning the two required parameters (blogId, postId) are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about these parameters—it doesn't explain what they represent, their format, or how to obtain them. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters semantically unclear.

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 'Fetch a single post' clearly states the verb ('fetch') and resource ('post'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'list_posts' (multiple posts) and 'create_post' (write operation). However, it doesn't specify what 'fetch' entails (e.g., retrieving by ID), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a blogId and postId), differentiate from 'list_posts' for multiple posts, or explain when to use 'get_blog_by_url' instead. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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