get_moment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently lists the returned data (description, links, linked discussion with post count), implying a read operation. It does not address potential errors, authorization, or side effects, but the get verb and content list provide adequate clarity for a simple read.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and the key return fields with no filler or repetition. 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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the result contains. 'Full details' is slightly vague, but the explicit enumeration of description, links, and linked discussion with post count makes the tool adequately callable.

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 documentation covers the only parameter 100%, including format, type, and source ('Moment ID (from browse_moments)'). The tool description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get full details of a specific moment.' It also enumerates the returned content (description, links, linked discussion with post count), which differentiates it from list-oriented siblings like browse_moments and read_discussion.

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 use when full details of one moment are needed, and the schema's parameter comment 'Moment ID (from browse_moments)' hints at the browse-then-get workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over browse_moments or read_discussion, nor does it give exclusions.

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