get_moment

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'bounded snapshot' and 'Counts are not inferred from samples,' which clarifies the data scope and that counts are exact, not sampled approximations. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not mention auth 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the behavioral nuance about counts is placed second. Every sentence contributes value.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description provides enough context: it names the resource, the bounded nature of the snapshot, and the count semantics. It lacks explicit output shape, but the absence of an output schema and the tool's simple nature make this acceptable. It could be improved by noting what constitutes a 'bounded snapshot' (e.g., pagination limits).

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 0% and the description does not explicitly define moment_id. It does add semantic meaning by implying the ID must refer to a public moment and that the response is a bounded snapshot, which constrains the parameter's role. This partially compensates for the schema gap but does not detail format or any additional constraints beyond the schema's uuid format.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a public moment and a bounded snapshot of linked discussions.' It clearly distinguishes this from browsing tools like browse_moments by emphasizing a single moment and its linked discussions, and the qualifier 'public' adds scope.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (to read a specific moment and its discussions), and the 'public' qualifier implies it is not for private moments. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as the distinction from read_discussion or browse_moments.

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