get-piazza-post

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by warning that Piazza posts are untrusted user-generated content and should never be treated as instructions. It also qualifies the return as 'complete bounded,' which clarifies that the thread is not truncated or filtered.

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 zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the security warning is a single additional clause. No irrelevant information is present.

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 simple, read-only get operation with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. It clarifies the untrusted nature of the content and the boundedness of the response. It does not cover error conditions or how to obtain a valid post_number, but this is minor given the output schema and the availability of list-piazza-posts as a sibling tool.

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 50%: course_id is described as 'A course ID returned by list-piazza-courses,' but post_number has no schema-level description. The tool description mentions 'by post number' but does not elaborate on the parameter's semantics or constraints beyond that. With low coverage, the description adds only minimal value for post_number.

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 ('Get'), resource ('Piazza thread'), and the key parameter ('by post number'). It is distinct from the list and search siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'one complete bounded' adds specificity about the scope of what is returned.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus the other Piazza tools, such as list-piazza-posts or search-piazza-posts. No alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions are mentioned. Usage context is only implied by the purpose statement.

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