reddit_get_post

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the output is a flattened depth-tagged list, comment trees are the largest API response, limits are deliberately conservative, and unexpanded replies are preserved under `unexpanded` with ids so nothing is silently dropped. This meaningfully enriches what the agent can expect from the call.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The core action leads, then the single most important behavioral caveat, then the related-tool handoff. Every sentence earns its place and the structure is easy to scan.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies enough context: what comes back (flattened depth-tagged list), how limits behave, how truncation is surfaced, and where to continue. No critical information for correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds practical parameter guidance above the schema by explaining that maxComments and maxDepth default low intentionally and should be raised only for deep/long-tail needs, plus how unexpanded replies map to further calls. It does not enhance all parameters, but it compensates for the more subtle ones.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Get one post together with its comment thread, flattened to a depth-tagged list.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like reddit_get_more_comments by describing how unexpanded replies are handled, leaving no ambiguity about what reddit_get_post is for.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to raise maxComments and maxDepth ('raise them when you actually need the long tail') and routes leftover replies to a specific alternative: 'pass those ids to reddit_get_more_comments.' This is explicit when/alternative guidance rather than merely implied context.

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