Read direct replies to a post

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key scoping behavior: this returns only direct replies and does not recurse into nested replies. That is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail pagination or auth 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 two short sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the sibling differentiator is placed in a single clear follow-up sentence.

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 list operation with thorough schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers the tool's scope and the key alternative, though it does not describe the output shape and does not contrast with the sibling get_all_replies. These are minor gaps, not blockers.

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?

All five parameters are already described in the schema, including id, limit, cursor, account, and reverse. The description does not add any param-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 title and description clearly state that this tool reads the direct replies to a post, one level deep. It also distinguishes itself from get_conversation by explicitly excluding the full reply tree, so an agent can confidently identify what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 explicit routing guidance: use get_replies for direct one-level replies, and use get_conversation for the whole tree including replies to replies. This directly tells the agent when to choose this tool and when to choose a sibling.

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